The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cognizance order can be quashed if it is barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., and the period of limitation for offences must be considered with reference to the offence punishable with the more severe punishment.

DHARAM VEER, J.

Since both these applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicants against the same Criminal Case No.291 of 2006 and against the summoning order dated 13.12.2005, hence, both these applications are being disposed of by this one and common order.

2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.291 of 2006 (old no.446 of 2005), State Vs. Ram Kumar and ohter, relating to offences punishable under Sections 379, 434, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) and one punishable 4/10 of U.P. Protection of Trees Act, 1976 (for short, the Act) and the charge sheet submitted by the police in case crime no.1 of 2000.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Govind Singh Sarpanch moved an application to the Patti Patwari, Buggi 5, District Pauri Garhwal on 15.5.2000 stating therein that in the month of December 1999, at the time of construction of road by P.W.D., the applicants, namely, Om Kumar Malik, Junior Engineer and Ram Kumar Tayal, Assistant Engineer of P.W.D., cut down the trees without obtaining the permission from the concerned authority. With these averments, the FIR was got registered at P.S. Buggi 5, District Pauri Garhwal on 16.5.2000 under Sections 119/201/379/434 of IPC and 4/10 of the Act. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. in the court on 13.12.2005. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 13.12.2005 taken the cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants u/Ss 379, 434, 201 of IPC and 4/10 of the Act. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 13.12.2005, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the cognizance order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal is barred by limitation u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

“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.]”

Sections 379, 434 and 201 of IPC are also essential to mention here, which read as under:-

379. Punishment for theft.-Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

434. Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land-mark fixed by public authority.-Whoever commits mischief by destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

201.- Causing disappearance of evidenc