POKHARMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.03.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Revision Petition No. 63/2012 whereby the learned revisional Court by dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner upheld and affirmed the order dated 24.03.2011 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 25, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Case No. 564/2006 whereby learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 341, 323 and 336 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No. 128/2006 came to be registered against the petitioner and co -accused -Shri Devilal for the aforesaid offences at Police Station Harmara, Jaipur on 03.05.2006 and after investigation charge -sheet was filed against them on 08.06.2006 and learned trial Court took cognizance against co -accused -Shri Devilal for the aforesaid offences, but cognizance was not taken against the petitioner. Co -accused -Shri Devilal faced trial and learned trial Court after hearing the final arguments fixed the case for judgment on 24.03.2011. It was found by the Court that although charge -sheet was filed both against petitioner and co -accused -Shri Devilal, but cognizance was taken only against co -accused -Shri Devilal and against petitioner neither cognizance was taken nor the proceedings were stopped under Section 258 Cr.P.C. It was further found by the trial Court that inadvertently cognizance was not taken against the petitioner and with this finding vide order dated 24.03.2011 cognizance was taken against him for the aforesaid offences. It was also observed by the trial Court that although the period of limitation of one year prescribed to take cognizance for the aforesaid offences has already expired, but the Court exercising its power conferred under Section 473 Cr.P.C. condoned the delay caused in taking cognizance. Dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner challenged it by way of aforesaid Criminal Revision Petition, but without any success. In these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this petition.

(3.) THUS , the only question now to be considered and decided in the present petition is whether the order of cognizance dated 24.03.2011 is barred by law under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as it has been taken much after the prescribed period of one year from the date of offence as the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the aforesaid offences is one year.