SURENDRA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the order passed on 25/3/2017 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil in G.R. Case No. 174 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences vide Annexure-2 and the order unsuccessfully assailing the aforesaid order taking cognizance of offence, passed on 21/8/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2017 vide Annexure-3.

(2.) The facts in precise are, in the course of inspection of the Railway sidings at Barbil on 25. 01.2010, 27 rake loads of iron ore were found dispatched to different places through Rail from 1/1/2010 to 25/1/2010, but the consigner and consignee of such transaction were neither lessee nor licensees of Joda circle. On suspecting the aforesaid quantity of dispatched iron rakes were to be product of theft and connivance of the Railway Authority, the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda, District Keonjhar lodged an FIR on 10/3/2010 before the IIC, Barbil Police Station against unknown persons which paved the way for registration of Barbil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2010 and ultimately, the same ended up with submission of charge sheet in C.S. No. 30 dated 07. 03.2017 against the petitioner and 39 others for commission of different offences, but the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil on consideration of materials and finding prima facie satisfaction took cognizance of offence U/Ss. 379, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC which was assailed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision on the ground of limitation, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua after taking note of the fact of taking cognizance of various offences by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil considers it inappropriate to segregate the offences against the present petitioner and dismissed the criminal revision. Hence, the present CRLMC by the petitioner.

(3.) Mr.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner challenges the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing to interfere the order taking cognizance of offence on a very short ground of 'Bar to taking cognizance of offence after lapse of period of limitation'. Mr.Mohanty has further submitted that since charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for offence U/S. 379/120-B of the IPC after gap of seven years and the limitation for taking cognizance of such offences being three years in terms of Sec. 469 of the Cr.P.C., the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently the revisional order refusing to interfere with the order taking cognizance of offence are bad in the eye of law and both the orders are, accordingly required to be quashed. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Mohanty prays to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently the revisional order.