SHYAM SUNDER SARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 18-2-81 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gauhati, dismissing the G.R. Case No. 1600 of 1974, as barred by limitation under S. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred as the 'Code'.

(2.) The petitioner hadlodged an 'ejahar', at Gauhati Sadar Police Station, about anoccurrence on 28-5-74 involving commission of cognizable offences. The case wasregistered. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet, under S.448/427/336/323/34 IPC on 8-12-78, against the respondents. On 2-1-79, thelearned Magistrate issued process. Accused (respondents) appeared. On 18-2-81by the impugned order the learned Magistrate took the view, that the case wasbarred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the same.

(3.) The complainant has come up in revision, and Sri B. K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that, firstly the petitioner had lodged the ejahar on 28-5-74 and the police had submitted the matter before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who had seen the same on 11-6-74. It, therefore, followed that the cognizance had been taken on 11-6-74 itself and that on 2-1-79, the learned Magistrate had merely issued process, accordingly, the case was not barred by limitation; secondly the offence under S. 448 IPC, criminal trespass was a continuing offence and therefore under the provisions of S. 472 of the Code, the period of limitation was extended and the case was not barred by the provision of sub-sec. (2) of S. 468, and lastly by issuing process on 2-1-79, it should follow, that the learned Magistrate had condoned the delay, under S. 473 of the Code. Sri Goswami has contended that the impugned order was not at all justified or correct and accordingly it should be set aside.