VARDHAMAN KALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under section 482 Crimial P.C. the accused-petitioner challenges the order dated 6.4.93, whereby cognizance was taken against him under Sec. 279 & 337 Penal Code by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambharlake. In brief, the facts of the case are that a report was made on 1.10.91 at police station Sambharlake by Shri Krishan Kumar Lakhera, an advocate. In the said report, he alleged that the accused-petitioner was driving TVS- Motorcycle at an excessive speed and struck to him on his leg deliberately. On this report, a case was registered under section 279 & 337 IPC. The informant Krishna Kumar was sent for medical examination and the doctor did not find any visible-injury on his leg. The police, after through investigation, submitted a final report. However, the learned Magistrate did not accept the final report and took cognizance against the petitioner on 6.4.93.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the offences under section 279 & 337 Penal Code are punishable for imprisonment for six months or fine of Rs. 1,000.00 or both, as such the cognizance could be taken by the learned Magistrate within one year as provided under Sec. 468 Crimial P.C. Counsel contended that occurrence has taken place on 1.10.91 as such the cognizance could have been taken up to 30th Sept., 1992, while the cognizance was taken by the learned trial Magistrate on 6.4.93. Thus, according to the learned counsel the cognizance was taken after the period of limitation.

(3.) Sec. 468 Crimial P.C. creates bar from taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. It is also note- worthy that as per Sec. 469 Crimial P.C. the-period of limitation in relation to an offender, commences on the date of occurrence. It is further note-worthy that no extention of period of limitation was made by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance.