SURESH RAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') the petitioners call in question the propriety of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal in criminal revision No. 227/97 whereby he has affirmed the order passed by the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Bhopal in R.T. No. 1125/96 wherein the learned Magistrate has framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 363, 342, 323 and 294 of IPC against the petitioner Nos. 3. 7 and 8 and under Sections 294, 342 and 323 IPC against the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details the facts as have been uncurtained are that the informant Shaila Kumari lodged an FIR as PS GRP, Bhopal alleging that on 13 -4 -93 at about 2 p.m. when her son Sanju, a boy aged about 14 years, was playing near her house he was assaulted and taken to a bunglow by the accused persons and was kept in confinement. A case was registered by GRP, Bhopal and eventually challan was filed in the Court of Special Railway Magistrate -cum -Judicial Magistrate First Class on 13 -4 -96 for the offences punishable under sections 342/323/34 and 294 of IPC. At the time of consideration of charge it was contended by the accused persons that all the offences in respect of which charge -sheet was laid were punishable to the maximum extent of one year, and therefore, submission of charge -sheet was barred by limitation as enjoined under Section 468 of the Code. The learned Magistrate rejected the application holding that a case under Section 363 IPC was made out and the said offence being punishable with 7 years imprisonment the question of limitation would not arise. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order the accused persons preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal who observed that there was prima facie material against all the petitioners for constituting an offence under Section 363 IPC and hence the revision did not merit consideration.

(3.) TO appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is essential to refer to section 468 and 473 of the Code which read as under: - 468 (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub -section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.