NARESH PRASAD @ NARESH GARAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.1996 passed by A.C.J.M. Barh, in Cr.Misc. No. 1 of 1991, by which he has taken cognizance under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code after a lapse of five years against the Petitioners.

(2.) The short facts leading to the case are that on 12.3.1991 at about 4.00 p.m. the informant was at his grocery shop. The accused Bhagwat Garai along with his two sons Jitendra Kumar, Bhupendra Kumar and one Nanda Mahto came to his shop. It has been alleged that the accused Bhupendra Kumar started abusing the informant and asked him to withdraw the suit relation to the house in which the shop was situated. It has been stated that Bhupendra assaulted the informant by fists and slaps. Accused Nanda Mahto closed the informant in a room. On hulla other persons came and opened the door of the room in which the informant was confined. The informant saw that the accused-persons after throwing the articles in the shop hither and thither took away Rs. 1,000/- from the cash box. The informant lodged a case bearing Ghoswari P.S. Case No. 14/91 dated 12.3.1991 under Sections 447, 341, 342, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused-persons. The Police started investigation and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. Thereafter cognizance was taken.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the A.C.J.M. failed to take notice of Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') which provides limitation in taking cognizance of the offence. In this case, the period of limitation has already expired and thereafter cognizance has been taken by the Court below.