MAHESH YADAV AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 29.7.2000, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in Case No. C-3-217 of 2000/T.R. No. 469 of 2000.

(2.) Shri Ajay Mukherjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has confined his argument to the point of limitation. Meaning thereby that no argument was advanced on the merit of the case. It was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that from the prosecution report i.e. Annexure-1, it is evident that alleged occurrence had taken place on 13.9.1996. However, prosecution report was submitted on 18.4.1997 and thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order of cognizance on 29.7.2000. While placing the provisions contained in Section 468(2)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision itself makes it clear that no court can taken cognizance after the period of limitation. It was submitted that for the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, maximum sentence is imprisonment for two years and as such in view of Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., maximum period of limitation would be three years. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of hearing, has also produced a certified copy of order passed by this Court on 19.3.2004 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003. Let it be kept on record. On perusal of the order, it transpires that in the said case also, accused persons were made accused on accusation of violation of the provisions contained in the Indian Forest Act and on the ground of limitation i.e. violation of provision under Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., this Court had quashed the order of cognizance. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court, while allowing Cr. Misc. No. 4773 of 2003, had also referred to a judgment of apex court. Accordingly, confining his prayer to quash the order of cognizance on the ground of limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of cognizance in the present case is liable to be set aside.

(3.) In this case, Shri Parmanand Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioners.