CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Suvra Ghosh, J
Amal Saha @ Amal Krishna Saha – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court discusses the implications of limitation law. (Para 3) |
The petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings of the G.R.Case No. 2205 of 2010 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar primarily on the ground that cognizance taken by the Magistrate is barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
It appears that the alleged incident occurred on November
04, 2010. Charge sheet was submitted on May 31, 2014, i.e., more than three years after the incident. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on May 29, 2024, i.e., about 14 years therefrom.
It shall be useful to set out Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
“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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.