Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36488 of 2010 ====================================================== Jugal Kishore Sah .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. P.N. Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 2 04-05-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.01.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Gardani Bagh P.S. Case No. 17/2003 whereby and whereunder petitioner along with others have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . 3. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the occurrence so alleged happens to be of the year 1998/99, the case was instituted in the year 2003 and cognizance has been taken in the year 2010 therefore the delay whatever been is sufficient to quash the criminal prosecution coupled with the order of cognizance. 4. Learned APP opposed the prayer and submitted that though as per Section 468 barrier has been put overtaking of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36488 of 2010 (2) dt.04-05-2012 2 cognizance having the offence possessing maximum period of imprisonment up to three years under different category. So far present petition is concerned, that is not hit by Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. as some of the Sections possess imprisonment up to seven years. 5. Petitioner has further submitted that whatever allegation has been leveled against the petitioner, that is all false and frivolous and further he has been made scapegoat to shield the high- ups because of the fact that neither petitioner was authorized to issue order, accept, direct for payment. So, on factual aspect also, petitioner cannot be roped in along with other co-accused. 6. Learned APP opposed and submitted that it happens to be matter of trial. 7. The factual aspect so far raised on behalf of the petitioner is to be adjudicated upon during course of trial. Virtually, it appears to be a defence case which, for the present, cannot be taken into consideration. As such, instant petition is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. perwez (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 419

Statute Text:
Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating by personation. Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.