HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 22.2.1996 and 21.11.1996 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore. By the first order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323/34 IPC and ordered the summoning of the petitioners as accused. By the second order, an application filed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. by the accused -petitioners was rejected.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. Bishnoi, learned Counsel for the petitioners was two fold: One, for the occurrence dt. 28.12.1994 the cognizance under Section 323 and 447 IPC could be taken within one year, and as the cognizance had been taken after the expiry of one year, it is liable to be quashed. He has relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v. Romdas Sriniwas Nayak 1984 SC 718 and Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran 1990 SCC (Cr.) 646. Two, the petitioners were entitled to protection under Section 197 Cr.P.C. because of the provisions of Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and Section 82 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and as the sanction of the competent authority was not obtained before prosecuting them, the cognizance is liable to be quashed. He has cited the case of Anand Singh v. State of Raj. 1975 WLN (UC) 514 in support of this contention.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars taking of cognizance after the lapse of a period of one year of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The offences under Section 323 and 447 IPC are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year. It is obvious that cognizance of the offences could not be taken after the expiry of the period of one year, without granting extension of period under Section 473 Cr.P.C.