SIPAHI RAWAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 22.7.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 1872 of 2003, Trial No. 1741 of 2005, whereby the Court below has issued summons to the accused persons including the petitioner for facing trial for the offence under Sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order of the Revisional Court dated 7.8.2005, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 352 of 2005/17 of 2005, affirming the order of the court below, dated 22.7.2005.

(2.) IN this case notices were issued to the opposite party No. 2, the complainant, by an order, dated 5.1.2007 and further proceedings in the Complaint case had been stayed. Despite service of notice on the Opposite Party No. 2, no one has appeared on his behalf.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner while raising a plea that the impugned order was hit under Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), has submitted that the offence was admittedly committed on 20.10.1994 but the order taking cognizance was passed on 22.7.2005. He had also submitted that the maximum punishment under Sec. 417 IPC being one year imprisonment or fine or both, the impugned order passed after more than 10 years of the date of occurrence cannot be sustained in terms of Sec. 468 of the Code. I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission because Sec. 468 of the Code is hedged by the provisions of Sec. 469 of the Code providing inter alia that the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence either on the date of the offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any Police Officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer whichever is earlier. Now in the complaint petition there is a clear averment that the complainant opposite party No. 2 came to realize and know of the cheating committed by the petitioner and others only on 2.7.2003 because he had always remained under the impression that what he had executed on 20.10.1994 was a deed of mortgage which ultimately turned out to be a deed of gift when he had obtained a copy thereof in the year 2003. According to the complainant, the offence of cheating committed on 20.10.1994 was not known to him from 20.10.1994 to 2.7.2003 and only when this position became clear to him, he had filed the petition of complaint on 22.9.2003 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate having applied his mind had sent the matter for further inquiry to the magistrate who had issued summons to the petitioner and others on 22.7.2005. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid plea of the petitioner and the same is hereby rejected.