MADANLAL STEELS LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 50/94 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Naraspur.

(2.) THE facts of this case in brief are as follows : The petitioner herein are accused 1 and 2 having alleged to have committed offences under Sections 120(B), 379 IPC and 39 and 42 of the Indian Electricity Act. After the de facto complainant filed a complaint, the matter was investigated by the police and the charge -sheet was filed. The averments made by the de facto complainant are that the offence took place on 19.3.91 the charge -sheet was filed after the investigation on 17.3.94 and the learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the offence on 8.4.94. On this factual position on record, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted at the Bar that the prosecution against the petitioners herein is not maintainable in view of Section 468(2) Cr. P.C. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though the charge -sheet is filed within three years, that is on 17.3.1994, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance on 8.4.94 and, therefore, it is barred by Section 468 Cr. P.C.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted at the Bar that the charge -sheet was filed within the priod of three years and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate after expiry of three years is justified. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the learned Magistrate can take the cognizance after the period of three years.