MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard, In this case the occurrence of alleged assault by the petitioner on Pradeep, injured took place on 5.5.94. The injured reported the matter to the police on that date. A case Under section 323, 307 Penal Code was registered. However, after investigation the police submitted a report Under section 169 Cr.PC. on 19.10.95. In the report it was concluded that the offence committed in that case, was punishable Under section 323 Penal Code only. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence Under section 325 Penal Code on 2.11.95 on the basis of the Negative Report, submitted by the police. The petitioner challenged the order of taking cognizance of that offence and summoning him by the Magistrate as an accused thereunder, by preferring Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1067/95 before this court. The said petition was however withdrawn on 24.1.96 and the petitioner was permitted to raise his objection before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner raised his objections before the learned Magistrate who by his impugned order dated 14.5.96 held that offence Under section 323 Penal Code in prima facie found to have been committed in the present case. He, therefore, directed that the substance of accusation for that offence be read over and explained to the petitioner accordingly.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offence Under section 323 Penal Code as the cognizance for that offence had been taken by the Magistrate much after the period of limitation, prescribed Under section 468 Crimial P.C. In support of such contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Sharwan Singh (AIR 1981 SC 1054) .

(3.) The learned counsel further invited my attention to another order, passed by the learned Magistrate on 27.7.96 whereby he had rejected the objection of the petitioner regarding limitation Under section 468 Cr.RC.