Sheema Ali Khan, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 14.11.2005 passed in Udwant Nagar Police Station Case No. 56 of 2001 (G.R. No. 668 of 2001/Trial No. 1275 of 2005) by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The order was challenged in Criminal Revision No. 55 of 2006 on the ground that the cognizance is barred u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Revisional Court i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Arrah has held that "But limitation prescribed u/s 468 Cr.P.C. is to be reckoned with reference to the date of the filing of complaint/charge sheet in the court in the first instance but not with reference to the date of taking cognizance." The finding of the Revisional Court is beyond the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:
468. Bar to take 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. The period of limitation is prescribed u/s 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It specifically states that "the limitation will commence (a) from the date of the offence; (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police office, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier".
4. Obviously, the scope of that section and the interpretation of the section has to be in accordance with the language of the Section. It cannot be held by the Court that it would be reckoned from the date of the submission of the charge sheet or for that matter, the date of filing of the complaint and it cannot be read to mean that the limitation is with respect to the filing of a case, thereby meaning that the case is with respect to an offence punishable with fine only, it should be filed within six months from the date of commission of the offence. Such a reasoning is not envisaged u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such it has to be set aside. The purpose of introducing limitation is to prevent abuse of the process of law and preventing criminal cases from being filed as an after thought and on the whims and fancy of a person.
5. In the present case, the offences are punishable under Sections 341, 323 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment u/s 341 of the Indian Penal Code is simple imprisonment for one month or fine of Rs. 500/- or both. The punishment u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code is one year or fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both while the punishment u/s 504 of the Indian Penal Code is imprisonment for two years or fine or both. Therefore, I find that this case is squarely covered by Sections 468 & 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed.
7. In the result, this application is allowed.
