SUMER SINGH MEENA Vs. RAJULAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing the order dated 5th Sept., 2000 whereby the Court of Revision while accepting the petition preferred by accused-respondents set aside the order taking cognizance against them on the premise that it was barred by limitation in view of Sec. 468 of Code.

(2.) Facts, which are relevant for consideration in the instant petition, are that for the incident which took place on 11th Oct., 1994, a complaint was filed before the competent court of jurisdiction on 20th Oct., 1994. Thereafter, the matter was sent for inquiry and finally learned trial Judge took cognizance against accused-non-petitioners vide order dated 6th November, 1998 u/ss.323, 324 & 341 IPC. The accused-non-petitioners filed revision petition which was allowed only on the premise that since learned trial Judge took cognizance after expiry of more than three years, as such it is barred by limitation in terms of Sec. 468 Crimial P.C. and on this count alone order taking cognizance was set aside.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that so far as limitation is concerned, it is to be examined on the date of filing of complaint and not on the date learned trial Judge took cognizance of offence and in support of his submission, counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, [2007 AIR SCW 4998 : 2007 Cr. L.R. (SC) 807 . With the assistance of judgment referred to supra, counsel submits that the view expressed by learned trial Judge while examining the scope of Sec. 468 Crimial P.C. is erroneous and the order impugned deserves to be set aside.