SURENDRA PRASAD KESHRI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V .K. Gupta 1. The offence patently seems to be time -barred. The Court, without any application of mind, appears to have mechanically rejected the petitioners application for dropping the proceedings in terms of Section 468, Cr. P.C. merely because the cognizance sariler had been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, and after taking cognizance the case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) I have perused the order dated 14 -12 -2000 and find that the only ground on which the petitioners application filed under Section 468, Cr. P.C. was dismissed is that the Cognizance of the case earlier was taken by the superior Court. The observations of the trial Court are as follows:

(3.) IN the present case, the allegation is that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 30 -7 -1997 and the congnizence was taken on 5 -6 -2000 for an offences allegedly committed under Section 24 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985, punishable under Section 47 thereof and the punishment prescribed is fine of up to Rs. 500/ -. Patently, therefore, in terms of Section 468, Cr. P.C. taking congnizence of such a case was barred by limitation. These facts were highlighted b y the petitioner in his application filed under Section 468, Cr. P.C. Had the learned Magistrate considered these facts, he would have returned the finding that taking of the cognizance was barred by limitation. He did not do so. Instead, he merely went by the earlier order taking cognizance, which actually was under challenge before him. Whether an earlier order taking cognizance is passed by a superior Court or not is immaterial to an application filed under Section 468, Cr. P.C. Whenever the accused brings to the notice of the Court the fact that the cognizance Was taken with respect to a time -barred offence, on that ground alone, the proceedings should be dropped. If such a fact was brought to the notice of the Court, the bounden duty of the Court was to consider such an application on the basis of such averments and pass order thereupon on its merits, being unifluenced by the fact that earlier cognizance was taken by some other Court, superior or otherwise.