HANUMANARAM Vs. BASTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition u/sec. 482 Cr. P. C. the order dated 4. 10. 83 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu has been assailed on the ground that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate has wrongly applied the provisions of the limitation envisaged by Section 468 Cr. P. C. and dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the revision petition filed against that order.

(2.) ON 13. 8. 78 the petitioner had filed a complaint u/sec. 447 IPC against the non-petitioner. ON 5. 2. 88 statement of the complainant was recorded. An application u/sec. 468 Cr. P. C. was filed by the accused on the ground that since the offence is punishable by three months in the present case one years period of limitation is allowed for taking cognizance and as the period of more than one year has passed between the date of occurrence and the date of taking cognizance i. e. 13. 3. 80 when process was ordered to be issued against the accused so the complaint should be dismissed. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/sec. 468 Cr. P. C. vide order dated 8. 4. 81. The aggrieved complainant preferred revision which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 4. 10. 83.