SHANTILATA AGARWALLA @ SHANTI AGARWALLA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order Boudh, dated 20 -10 -1986, in G.R. Case No. 77 of 1982 against the Petitioner under Section 406, IPC.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this briefly stated as follows:

(3.) AN offence under Section 406, IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. Under Section 498(2)(c), Code of Criminal Procedure the period of limitation shall be three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three of the S.D.J.M., taking cognisance revision may be years. So for the offence under Section 406, IPC the period of limitation is three years. For the allegations made by the said lata Devi it is seen that even according to her the offence under Section 406, IPC was committed by the Petitioner in or about the year 1977. Even the FIR in the case against the Petitioner was lodged on 26 -3 -1982. So on the admitted facts when the learned S.D.J.M. had taken cognisance of the offence under Section 406, IPC on 20 -10 -1386, such cognisance was taken long after the expiry of the period of limitation of three years. However, under Section 473, Code of Criminal Procedure the Court is given the judicial discretion to take cognisance of an offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.