AHMED NAWAJ ALLADIN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) A case was registered on 19th January, 1994 for an occurrence on 7th January, 1994. The petitioner was accused of having violated Sections 39 and 44 of Indian Electricity Act. The matter was investigated and charge-sheet was submitted on 15th January, 1997. The Magistrate took cognizance on 22nd October, 1997. This quashing proceeding has been filed stating therein that in terms of Section 468 of.Cr.P.C. cognizance should be taken by the Magistrate within three years of the occurrence and not beyond as Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act prescribe a maximum punishment of three years. The learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the period of limitation for taking cognizance would end by 6th of January, 1997 and as such even the charge-sheet had been submitted beyond time. The learned Public Prosecutor however maintains that the information was received about the offence by the Police only on 19th January, 1994 therefore they had the time upto 18th January, 1997. He relies on sub-section (b) of Section 469 Cr.P.C. It may not be necessary to decide on this plea of the learned Public Prosecutor because in any case cognizance was not taken even before 18th January, 1997 by the Magistrate. Cognizance had been taken on 22nd October, 1997 which was decidedly beyond three years even if the date for starting the period of limitation is taken as 19th January, 1994. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the charge-sheet had been filed well within time i.e., on 15th January, 1997 and it was for the Magistrate concerned to take the cognizance who took the cognizance on 22nd October, 1997, therefore it should be presumed that the cognizance had been taken on the date the charge-sheet had been filed. This plea has already been decided by this Court in Madanlal Steels Ltd. vs. State where it has been held that the language of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is clear and it creates a hurdle in the way of the Magistrate to take cognizance if the cognizance is not taken within the time prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The import of Section 468 Cr.P.C. is that the Magistrate should take cognizance within the period prescribed under Section 468 and if it is not done and cognizance is taken after the period of limitation that will be clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

(3.) For these reasons, this petition is allowed and charge-sheet in C.C. No. 491/97 in Crime No. 1/94 is quashed. No costs.