BASAVANTAPPA BASAPPA BANNIHALLI Vs. SHANKARAPPA MARIGALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 7-2-1989, passed by the J.M.F.C., Byadgi, in C.C. No. 5/88, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C., alleged against the petitioners in the private complaint lodged against them by the respondent-complainant on 2-4-1985, alleging that the petitioners at about 5 p.m. on 22-3-1985 committed house trespass by entering into the house of the respondent-complainant at Hedigonda village and assaulted the respondent and his father with their hands and voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed offences under Sections 447 and 323 I.P.C. The learned J.M.F.C. took cognizance of the said offences by order dated 1-1-1988 and ordered issue of process against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused entered appearance in the trial-Court and after taking some adjournments filed an application on 15-12-1988 requesting the Court not to proceed against them as cognizance of the offences alleged against them in the complaint of the respondent was taken by the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year fixed under Section 468(2) Cr. P.C. By order dated 7-2-1989, the learned J.M.F.C., Byadgi, dismissed the said application qf the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioners.

(2.) Sri. F.V. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate has committed grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of the offences alleged against them in the complaint and in condoning the delay even in the absence of any application by the respondent-complainant under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay. In support of the said submission, Sri. Patil placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v vedavati [1978(1) Kar. LJ. 46].

(3.) In my opinion, there is no substance in the above mentioned two submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the decision cited by him is distinguishable on the facts of the case on hand.