Cognizance of an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act was invalid due to exceeding the statutory limitation period under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Order :

FARJAND ALI, J

1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 11.08.2009, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore has taken cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a criminal complaint came to be submitted at the instance of SHO, Police Station Chitalwana, District Jalore on 22.04.2008 alleging therein that a land was purchased by the petitioner on 06.10.2007 in the restricted area, therefore, she committed the offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961.

3. The maximum punishment as per sub-clause (6) of the Act is term of imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Admittedly, if any offence was committed by the petitioner by purchasing a land in the restricted area, then, it was purchased through registered sale deed dated 06.10.2007. The date of execution of sale deed, the payment of price and delivery of possession would be the date of commission of crime.

4. Section 468 of the CrPC provides that :-

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 be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.

5. A perusal of the provision is making it abundantly clear that Section 468 of the CrPC prevents the court from taking cognizance of certain offences after the period of limitation is expired. In cases where imprisonment is upto one year, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence is one year. Herein in this case, the offence was committed on 06.10.2007 and the complaint came to be filed on 22.04.2008 even after expiry of period of limitation and the order under challenge was passed on 11.08.2009, ostensibly after expiry of period of limitation. The question is not debatable that indeed the cognizance was taken de hors the mandatory provisions of law and therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. The Court of revision has also failed to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and dismissed the revision petition without actually appreciating the legal aspect of the matter. Therefore, both the orders, i.e. the one passed by the court of first instance as well as the one passed by court of revision are bad in the eye of law and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Consequently, the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore in Regular Criminal Case No.556/2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is exonerated from the charges.

7. The miscellaneous petition is allowed in these terms. The stay petition is disposed of.

8. Record be sent back.