RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice, which she has accepted.

(2.) Heard Shri S.K. Gupta on the question regarding condonation of delay in presenting the complaint before the learned Magistrate.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that the alleged incident, which is subject matter of complaint presented by the petitioner before the trial Court for taking cognizance against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 426. IPC on 17-5-1994. Thereafter, on 18-5-1994 the incident was reported to the police by the complainant on, which the police investigated the matter and closed the investigation by submitting the FR on 27-6-994. Thereafter, on 24-8-1994 the petitioner filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate pleading that an enquiry be made in the matter. The complainant was examined afresh and his witnesses were also examined by way of corroborating the evidence of the statement made by the complainant as per Sections 200 and 202. Cr. P.C. and thereafter, the process was issued as per Section 204. Cr. P.C. on 8-8-1996. The question arose before the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court as to from which date the limitationT should be construed? Whether from the date when the protest petition was filed i.e. 24-8-1994 or from the date when cognizance was taken i.e. on 8-8-1996 when the process was issued. The revisional Court vide its order dated 3-11-1998 has opined that in view of provisions of Section 426 IPC, which defines the offence of mischief, which stipulates as under: