HARI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This misc. petition is directed against the orders dt. 22. 2. 96 and 21. 11. 96 passed 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. 94, 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 vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1) and Krishna Pillai vs. T. A. Rajendran 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 vs. State of Rajasthan (3) in support of this contention.

(3.) IN the instant case, the complainant had lodged a report with the police. The police after investigation gave final report. The learned Magistrate gave notice to the complainant vide order dt. 5. 7. 95. The complainant appeared before the Magistrate and filed a protest petition on 11. 9. 95, on which the Magistrate ordered that the witnesses shall be examined. IN my opinion, it is the date 11. 9. 95 on which cognizance of the offence can be said to have been taken by the Magistrate. Ofcou- rse, in the order dt. 22. 2. 96 it was recorded by the Magistrate that he was taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 447 and 323/34 IPC but these observations will not make the order dt. 22. 2. 96, the order of taking cognizance. As a matter of fact, the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offences on 11. 9. 95 when he proceeded to enquire into the matter under Chapter XV of the Code of 1973.