The period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is computed from the date of the offence until the date of filing the charge-sheet or complaint. Cognizance taken after the expiry of this period without formal condonation of delay is legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

Heard Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. These criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. [corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] are directed against the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia [in short ‘learned JMFC’] and the order dated 20.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia. As all three petitions arise out of the same police station case, being ITA P.S. Case No. 243/2011 under Sections 341/323/384/34 of the IPC, and are directed against a common order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the learned JMFC, Yupia, whereby Miscellaneous Application Nos. 09/2017, 10/2017 and 11/2017 filed by the petitioners under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected by a common order, and as the said order has been further affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, by separate but analogous orders dated 20.09.2017 in Criminal Revision Nos. 02/2017 (YPA), 03/2017 (YPA), and 04/2017 (YPA), respectively and also as the issues involved pertain to identical facts and common questions of law, all three petitions are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment to avoid repetition and multiplicity of proceedings.

3. The case of the petitioners is that, based on a written FIR lodged by one Sri Tapi Mra on 22.09.2011, a case, being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 243/2011, was registered under Sections 341/323/384/34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet on dated 09.10.2014 against four accused persons, including the present three petitioners, for offences punishable under Sections 341/323/384/34 of the IPC. A corresponding G.R. case, then was registered, and on the basis of the charge-sheet so filed; by order dated 04.03.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [in short ‘learned CJM’], Yupia, the case was endorsed to the Court of the learned JMFC, Yupia, for further proceedings and disposal.

4. Accordingly, by an order dated 09.03.2016, the learned JMFC, Yupia, took cognizance of the offences in G.R. Case No. 405/2011 and issued summons to the petitioners and the other accused persons. Thereafter, on 18.01.2017, the present petitioners filed three separate Miscellaneous Applications, being Nos. 09/2017, 10/2017, and 11/2017, under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., praying for discharge from G.R. Case No. 405/2011 on the common ground that, in the instant case, the charge-sheet was filed 17 days (actually 18 days) beyond the period of limitation, i.e., from 22.09.2011 to 21.09.2014, and as such, the Trial Court was barred from taking cognizance of the offences.

5. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., being relevant, is reproduced below:

“Section 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 punish