The main legal point established is that the limitation for taking cognizance under the provisions of law is as provided in Section 468 of the Cr.PC, and the charge-sheet must be laid within the period of limitation.

JUDGMENT

Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J. - Heard Mr. AM Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. RJ Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.PC is filed seeking quashment of the order, dated 20.06.2017, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in GR Case No. 413/2016, arising out of CID P.S. Case No. 03/2016, by which order, cognizance of offences was taken against the petitioner, under Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.

3. I have perused the petition as well as the impugned order.

4. Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted, referring to the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.PC, that in the instant case, cognizance was taken after the period of limitation for taking cognizance was over. He has further referred to the provisions of Section 469 of the Cr.PC to apprise the Court as to the date of commencement of the period of limitation. He has submitted that in the instant case, the State Police Accountability Commission (in short, SPAC) had given a direction, on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 2, dated 20.04.2013, to register a case against the petitioner.

5. On receipt of the FIR, filed by the CID, a case was registered under Sections 166A/201/217/218/466 of the IPC, read with Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.

6. This Court would like to note here that the SPAC recommended initiation of an FIR/filing of a case against the petitioner, vide its recommendation, dated 15.02.2014. After registration of the case, as aforesaid, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet, after completion of investigation, under Sections 98(a)/98(b) of the Assam Police Act, 2007.

7. Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the punishment prescribed for the offence for which the petitioner is charge-sheeted. The punishment prescribed for such offences are imprisonment for 3 (three) months or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) or with both. He has further referred to the provisions of Section 106 of the aforesaid Assam Police Act, 2007 to submit that the limitation for taking cognizance under the aforesaid provisions of law is as provided in Section 468 of the Cr.PC.

8. According to Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner came to know about the offence in the instant case from the order passed by the SPAC on 15.02.2014. In the instant case, the charge-sheet was laid on 24.02.2017 and cognizance was taken by the learned court below on 20.06.2017. Therefore, Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that period of limitation be counted from the date of knowledge in respect of commission of offence by the petitioner till the date of filing of the charge-sheet, excluding the period of time required for obtaining prosecution for sanction.

9. Such argument canvassed before this Court by Mr. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has been resisted by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the ground that from the date of knowledge of the alleged offences committed by the respondent No. 2, excluding the time taken for obtaining sanction for prosecution, the charge-sheet was laid within the period of limitation.

10. According to Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the period of limitation has to be calculated from the date of registration of the case, i.e., 12.01.2016.

11. There is no dispute at the bar that in the instant case, the date of knowledge and date of registration of the case are different. The date of knowledge, on the basis of the materials on record appears to be the date on which SPAC recommended initiation of prosecution against the respondent No. 2 and date of registration of the