CHAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed in grievance to the order dated June 12, 1984 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagaur rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioners regarding the limitation for taking cognizance of the case under Sections 379 and 411 IPC.

(2.) ON February 9, 1971 one Kishoresingh of Village Jagi lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Naguar, alleging therein that Jeep No. MRG 1264 being used in connection with the Election Work during those days had been stolen at the cattle fair Manasar on February 9, 1971 at about 3.00 p.m. Case under Section 379 IPC was registered. Police could not trace out the thief and, therefore, final report was filed in the Court. On September 18, 1978 S.H.O. Khunkhuna received information through, a 'mukhbir' that the Jeep, stolen at cattle fair Manasar in 1971 was there in the 'Bada' of Hardeen Ram Jat. On investigation Police came to know that the Jeep was placed there by Chairman Ex -Pradhan, Badabara, Ramchandra Jat and one more person seven or eight months before in the night. Hardeenram, Nanuram, Magangingh, Surajnarayan and Bhanwaroon Khan were examined by the Police. Jeep was recovered from the 'Bada' of Hardeenram. Charge -sheet under Sections 379 and 411 IPC against the six petitioners was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur on October 3, 1980. On April 17, 1982 Kunaram filed an application for taking cognizance against Hardeenram also. On June 25, 1983 another application under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here in after to be referred as 'the Code'), was filed on behalf of the petitioners with the prayer that they may be discharged because of the bar under Section 468 of the Code for taking cognizance by the Court after three years of the incident. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the parties on the applications and by the order dated June 12, 1984 rejected both the applications and fixed the case for framing of the charge. It is in grievance of that order that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor controverting these contentions submitted that though the occurrence related to February 8, 1971 and the first information report was filed on the next day, the names of the assailants were not known till September 18, 1978 when the 'mukhbir' informed the Police about the Jeep being in the 'Bada' of Hardeenram. Therefore, the charge -sheet filed on October 3, 1980 being within three years from September 18, 1978 was within the period of limitation. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that ' the question of limitation does not come in the way of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance in the case.