UPENDRA PASI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case was lodged on 20.10.1991 for commission of offence of theft of cable in Moonidih area of B.C.C.L. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code on 2.1.1992 but the cognizance of the offence was taken on 27.11.1996. Since cognizance of the offence was taken after five years of the commission of the offence of theft, punishable for a period of three years, an application was filed for discharge of the petitioner from the case taking a plea that order taking cognizance is itself barred by limitation. That application was rejected. Against that, Cr. Rev. No.31 of 2003 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, who remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order on the petition filed for discharge. However, learned Magistrate again rejected the petition for discharge on 25.8.2006.

(2.) Being aggrieved with that order, Cr. Rev. No.352 of 2006 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which on transfer was heard by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-FTC No.5, Dhanbad.

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and placing his reliance on the decision rendered in a case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State ofA.P, 2003 8 SCC 559] and also on a decision rendered in a case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, 2007 7 SCC 394] held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation relevant date be considered as the date of filing of the complaint or initiating criminal proceeding and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate and thereby affirmed the order passed by the trial court whereby prayer for discharge had been rejected by the leaned Magistrate.