S G GOPIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P. No. 422 o 1992 in C.C.No. 227 of 1985 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Hosur rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case has been taken on file after the period of limitation was over. It is represented by Mr. Perumal appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was alleged to have been in possession of 46 pieces of teak wood and one rose wood on 31.5.1979 and the case was registered against him for the offence under Rule 3 read with Rule 7 of Sandal Wood Possession Rule and Section 36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and that after investigation the charge-sheet was filed on 30.9.1985 i.e. after six years. According to the counsel for the petitioner, under section 468 Cr. P.C., the offences which are punishable for three years have to be brought to the notice of the Court by filing charge-sheet within three years. He also submits that three years got expired on 31.05.1982 itself. But, in this case, though the offence was detected on 31.05.1979, admittedly the charge- sheet was filed on 30.09.1985. Moreover, according to the counsel for the petitioner, cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate by taking the case on file only on 11.4.1989 and so it is clearly barred by limitation under section 468 Cr. P.C. Learned counsel further submits that without referring the vital point raised before the lower court, learned Magistrate merely dismissed the application by observing that the cognizance has already been taken on 11.4.1989 and that the present application was presented in 1992 only in order to drag on the proceedings.

(2.) I heard learned Government Advocate and perused the records.