RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dtd. 16/4/2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, District Dausa, whereby application for extension of period of limitation filed by the prosecution has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Ss. 135, 136 and 150 of Electricity Act has been taken, the petitioners have filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, as also prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.646/2011 registered at Police Station Anti-Electricity Theft (APTPS), Dausa.

(2.) Facts in this case are not much disputed. One FIR No.646/2011 was registered in Police Station APTPS, Dausa with the allegation with regard to illegally installing transformer of 25 KVA without following the proper process. It was further found that such act was done in conspiracy with Ramkishore Sharma, Store Keeper, Ramesh Chand Saini officiating an Assistant Engineer, Junior Engineer Mahendra Kumar and Vishram Meena who was a contractor. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the FIR has been registered for the offence under Ss. 135 and 136 of Electricity Act, 2003, in which the maximum punishment provided is sentence of 3 years. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Sec. 468 Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation and sub Sec. 2 clause (c) of the Code prescribes for a period of limitation which shall be 3 years for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. By relying upon the aforesaid provisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, the limitation for taking cognizance was 3 years, which was to be computed from the date of lodging of FIR. In the instant case as FIR was lodged on 28/5/2011, therefore, the limitation of 3 years expired on 27/5/2014, however, in the instant case, challan was filed by the Police Authorities on 15/11/2018 and cognizance was taken on 16/4/2019, which was beyond limitation and the court below had no jurisdiction whatsoever to take cognizance in view of specific provisions of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. Application for extension of limitation has been illegally allowed by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale and Anr. Vs. State of AP reported in (2003) 8 SCC 559 and Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions and stated that Sec. 473 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to take cognizance after extending the prescribed limitation period in case the delay occurred has sufficiently been explained by the prosecution authority. In the instant case, one specific application under Sec. 470(2), 4-B and 473 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Investigating Officer in which following reasons were given :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_86_LAWS(RAJ)11_2025_1.jpg</IMG>