Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Satrudhan Mistri & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.37692 of 2015
Decided On : 08-04-2016
Limitation - Forest Offences - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 33, 41, 42 - The judgment discusses the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its application to the Forest Act. It highlights the mandatory nature of the limitation period and the discretion of the court to condone the delay in the interest of justice. The court emphasizes the importance of proper explanation for delay and the need for the court to exercise its discretion judiciously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an order taking cognizance of forest offences under the Indian Forest Act. They argued that the order was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed after three years from the date of the offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation as per Section 468 of the CrPC. It noted that the discretion to condone the delay was not properly exercised and the delay was not properly explained.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order taking cognizance of the forest offences was barred by the law of limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the impugned order was not sustainable as it was barred by the law of limitation and the discretion to condone the delay was not properly exercised.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the application.
Heard Mr. Vinay Mistry, learned counsel for the petitioners and Dr. Mayanand Jha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 08.06.2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Daudnagar, Aurangabad in Forest Case No. 1 of 2013, whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out for the offences punishable under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short “the Forest Act”) cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.
3. The prosecution report discloses about an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 02.01.2010. It has been stated in the report submitted by one Dhanik Paswan, a Forester, Goh-Haspura before the learned SDJM, Daudnagar that four trees of Sisam were cut down and removed from Pachrukhiya raod. On inquiry, it transpired from the villagers that the culprits including the petitioners carried the timber by tractor and sold them.
4. On the basis of said prosecution report submitted by the aforesaid Dhanik Paswan, cognizance was taken under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest Act by the learned SDJM, Daudnagar vide impugned order dated 08.06.2013.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order taking cognizance of the offence is barred by law of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) for the reason that the maximum punishment provided under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest Act is two years. It has been further submitted that the prosecution report itself would indicate that with regard to the present occurrence an information was submitted by one Suresh Rajak, a Forest Guard to the Forester, Dhanik Paswan on 02.01.2010 for institution of the case and thereafter, the Forester submitted the prosecution report before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 05.06.2013 pursuant to which cognizance has been taken after lapse of three years and four months from the date of commission of the offence which is not permissible in law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Section 473 of the CrPC provides that if any Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice, it may take cognizance of the offence even after expiry of the period of limitation. He has also submitted that in view of the statutory provisions under Section 473 of the CrPC, the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate cannot be held to be bad in law. He has submitted that the cognizance has been taken in the present case on the date of filing the complaint itself and hence the same cannot be treated to be barred by the law of limitation.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
8. To understand the scheme of Chapter XXXVI it would be advantageous to quote Sections 467 to 473 of the CrPC. They read as under:-
“467. Definitions. — For the purposes of this Chapter, unless the context otherwise, requires, "period of limitation" means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence.
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be—
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
