SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by order dated 18.10.2012 passed in CE No. 18 of 2012, by Sri Arbind Kumar -II, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 47(a), 48, 55 and 66A of the Excise Act.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has taken a short point challenging the order taking cognizance and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners. It has been submitted that admittedly in this case, the offence was allegedly committed on 7.3.2012, whereas the prosecution report was submitted on 18.10.2012, i.e., beyond the period of six months. It is accordingly, submitted that the cognizance taken is absolutely barred under Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act and as such criminal proceeding also stands vitiated. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case, in which the order taking cognizance dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Court below, as also the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners, be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of Patna High Court in R.P. Sharma & Ors., Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in : 1999(1) East Cr C 140 (Pat), wherein where, the prosecution report was submitted after six months after the offence, it has been held that the requirement of Section 96 of the Excise Act is that the prosecution is to be instituted, meaning thereby the report or the complaint is to be filed in terms of Section 78(4) of the Act, within six months of the act complained of and if the report is filed beyond the period of six months, the cognizance taken on the basis of said report is vitiated in law and in breach of provisions contained in Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act. It has been submitted that similar view has been taken by this Court also, in Dinesh Rai Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in : 2007(1) JCR 295 (Jhr.). Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.