VINAY SAPRE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner herein against the order passed by the trial court dated 19.7.2010 in Criminal Revision No. 277/2009. The order was passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Khurai, District Sagar, in Vinay Sapre v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Forest Department through Forest Range Officer, Khurai, District Sagar). By the impugned order, the learned Court of Sessions upheld the order dated 31.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai, District Sagar, by which delay in taking cognizance was condoned under Section 473 Cr.P.C. By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashment of the proceedings pending before the lower court.

(2.) The brief facts essential to appreciate the instant case are as follows. It is alleged by the respondent that on 25.6.2002, at the Sagar Naka barrier in Khurai, the petitioner herein was carrying wood in his tractortrolley without licence. The forest authorities registered POR No. 1272/2011 on 25.6.2002 itself against the petitioner herein. The charge-sheet was filed on 10.8.2007 after a passage of five years from the registration of the POR against the petitioner herein. On 10.8.2007 itself, the case was registered against the petitioner and notice was issued to him for deciding an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C, filed by the respondent for condonation of delay in taking cognizance of the offences. The offences against the petitioner herein were under Sections 41 and 42 read with Section 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under Sections 5 and 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. The petitioner appeared before the learned trial court and opposed the application for condonation of delay and vide order dated 31.8.2009, the learned Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai, condoned the delay. The maximum punishment that the petitioner herein could have faced for the said offences was two years imprisonment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that cognizance ought to have been taken latest by 25.6.2005 as the period of limitation provided under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C is three years, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The commencement of the period of limitation as per Section 469(1) Cr.P.C, is from the date of the offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer. The undisputed fact in this case is that, the date of the offence, the knowledge about the commission of the offence and the identity of the offender were all known on 25.2.2002 itself.