STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. GAGAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of present appeal, preferred under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has assailed the acquittal of the Respondents of the offence under Section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, recorded by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, vide judgment dated 8.12.1995, in Criminal Case No. 32 -II of 1992.

(2.) Though the Respondents except Respondent Gagan Singh were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Magistrate proceeded to acquit the Respondents on the ground of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that since the cognizance of the offence was taken after the expiry of the period of limitation meant under Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings against the Respondents were bad.

(3.) Admittedly, the offence in the present case is alleged to have taken place on 22.10.1989. After completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was presented to the court on 31st December, 1991. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the Respondents on 7.1.1992. The learned Assistant Advocate -General while assailing the findings of the learned Magistrate as to the limitation has contended that though initially the offence punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act was punishable with imprisonment up to six months, by virtue of amendment made to Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide Indian Forest (Himachal Pradesh Second Amendment) Act, 1991, the offence under Section 42, Indian Forest Act has been made punishable with imprisonment up to two years w.e.f. 9.7.1991. It has further been contended that since the offence under Section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act as applicable to Himachal Pradesh is now punishable with imprisonment up to two years, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence would be three years within the meaning of Clause (c) of Section 468(1), Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the cognizance of the offence in the present case was taken by the learned Magistrate within the said prescribed period of three years, the learned Magistrate had erred in holding the case to be time -barred.