DHANESWAR PATRO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though the case is listed for admission today, on the prayer and consent of learned Counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing.

(2.) HEARD

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution report the occurrence took place on 15.10.1988 at 7.00 P.M. The offence under Section 27(1) (a) of the Forest Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and fine of Rs. 500/ - and the offence under Rule 21 of T.T. Rules is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/ - or both. So, the learned Court below ought not have taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 20.1.1990 more than one year after the alleged occurrence, in violation of the provision under Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. He further submits that the petitioner filed a petition on 22.3.2005 before the J.M.F.C., to recall the order of taking cognizance but he rejected it on the sole ground that he has no power to recall his own order. So the CRLMC should be allowed.