A SREERANGA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent.JudgementORDER :- This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad Dated 12-1-2000 passed in Cri. M.P.No. 806 of 2000 in C.C.No. 493 of 1999 under which he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-accused No. 2 to discharge him from the prosecution for the offences under Section 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act on the ground that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of those offences after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the accused No. 2 in C.C.No. 493 of 1999 facing charges for the offences punishable under Section 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act. The alleged offence is said to have been detected on 14-12-1993 and charge sheet is said to have been first filed on 9-12-1996 before the 17th Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned 17th Metropolitan Magistrate returned the charge sheet for presentation of the same before the III Metropolitan Magistrate on 28-5-1997 and the same was presented before the III Metropolitan Magistrate on 4-7-1997 but the charge sheet was returned with certain office objections and the same was represented after complying with the objections on 27-10-1999. The petitioner-accused No. 2 surrendered before the Magistrate on 20-7-1997 and was released on bail.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as indisputably the offence was detected on 14-12-1993 and as the offence is punishable with maximum: imprisonment of three years the cognizance of the offence ought to have been taken before 14-12-1996. Charge sheet was filed five days before the expiry of the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. After return and resubmission of the charge sheet ultimately cognizance was taken only on 6-11-1999. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 is that in view of these facts the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence after the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468, Cr. P.C.