MAMTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 11.8.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sanchore in Cr.Case No.560/2009 whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961.

(2.) THE order taking cognizance has been assailed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

(3.) FACTS in brief are that the SHO Chitalwana, District Jalore filed a complaint against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore on 29.2.2008. It was alleged in the complaint that the Home Department of the Central Government had issued a notification dated 12.3.1996 as per which, the areas falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Sanchore, Chitalwana and Sarwana were declared as notified areas under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. As a consequence of the notification, the entry and presence of a person not being the bonafide resident of such areas without the permission of the authorised officer was prohibited and amounted to an offence under the Ordinance. The District Magistrate, Jalore allegedly issued a direction to make an inquiry into an information that unauthorised persons were entering into the notified areas without permission and were indulging in purchase of land falling in the notified areas. It was alleged in the complaint that the SHO procured copies of various land transactions from the office of the Tehsil Chitalwana and came to know that the petitioner being a resident of Jaipur i.e. a place beyond the notified area, purchased certain chunks of land falling in the notified area after entering into the notified area on 1.6.2006 without permission of the authorised officer and got the land registered in her name. It was alleged that the petitioner's unauthorised entry into the notified area amounted to an offence under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961. It was further mentioned in the complaint that SHO came to know for the first time on 9.2.2008 that the petitioner had purchased land in the prohibited area. As soon as he became aware of the offence being committed, the complaint was filed in the court concerned. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2009 which is under challenge in this misc. petition.