HARADHAN PUROHIT Vs. MAHADEV MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present revision with the prayer that the order dated 21-9-1983 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial magistrate, Bargarh in the Case ICC No. 90/82 taking cognizance against him under Section 341, Indian Penal Code should be quashed.

(2.) The opposite party had filed the complaint petition on 5-8-1982 complaining against the petitioner that on 18-7-1982 the petitioner had wrongfully restrained him and thereby rendered himself liable under Section 341, I.P.C. The S.D.J.M. posted the case to 11-8-1982 for recording the initial sworn statement of the complainant. That on 11-8-1982 as the S.D.J.M. found the accused in the complaint -petition to be his friend, requested the C.J.M., Sambalpur to withdraw the case from his file and thereafter the case was adjourned to several dates for necessary orders from the C.J.M. That in the mean while the then D.D.J.M. was transferred and the S.D.J.M. who took his charge posted the case to 21-9-1983 for recording the initial statement of the complainant. That on 21-9-1983 the S.D.J.M. took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 341, I.P.C. and it is against the order of taking cognizance the present revision is preferred.

(3.) On the complaint petition of the opposite party alleging that the petitioner had wrongfully restrained him on 18-7-1982 the learned S.D.J.M. had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 341, I.P.C. the punishment prescribed for the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341, I.P.C. is either simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or fine which may extend to Rs 500/- or with both. Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as the Code) provides that if the accused is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, the period of limitation shall be one year and according to Section 469(1)(a) of the Code, the period of limitation, in relation to an offenders shall commence on the date of the offence. In the present case even according to the alleged offence was committed on 18-7-1982. But the cognizance of the offence was taken by the court only on 21-9-1983 that is, long after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year from the date of offence. So in the facts of the present case it is clear that by 21-9-83, the period of limitation having expired, the Magistrate had already lost his power to toke cognizance. So in case the learned S.D.J.M. wanted to toke cognizance on 21-9.1983 he could have done so by extending the period of limitation by invoking the provision of Section 473 of the Code.