Honble PANWAR, J.–The matter is called twice, no one appears for the petitioner.

(2). Heard learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. I have carefully gone through the memo of revision petition and the order impugned dated 3.3.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar (for short `the Trial Court hereinafter) whereby the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences u/ss. 166, 167 & 204 IPC against the petitioner and issued the process. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance and issuing process, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision petition u/s. 397/401 IPC.

(3). In the memo of revision, the first ground by which the order impugned has been assailed by the petitioner is that the alleged offence was committed in the year 1999 and the cognizance has been taken in the year 2003 and therefore, according to the petitioner the order taking cognizance is barred by period of limitation.

(4). From the perusal of the order impugned it appears that the complaint was filed by the non-petitioner before the Trial Court on 29.4.2000 and thereafter ultimately, the Trial Court took the cognizance on 3.3.2003.

(5). In Bharat Damodar Kale

Click Here to Read the rest of this document