Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.44804 of 2009 ====================================================== Abul Hasan son of late Ulfat Hassan, resident of Village-Akhatiyarpur, P.S.-Sarsi (Banmankhi), District-Purnea, present resident of Mohalla- Madhopara Ward No. 19, P.S. K. Hat, District-purnea. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Nadimul Hasan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 2 05-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 01.09.2004, passed in G.R. No. 944 of 2001, whereby the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner advanced the sole argument that the First Information Report was lodged on 29.05.2001 regarding the same day occurrence, while the cognizance of the offence through the impugned order has been taken on 01.09.2004 for the offence under [STATUTE] and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. According to Section 468 (2) (C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44804 of 2009 (2) dt.05-04-2012 2/2 limitation to take cognizance for the offence punishable for up-to three years is only three years, but in the present case the impugned order has been passed after three years of the date of the occurrence. As such the same is time barred and the Court had no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the offence through the impugned order. In case of Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Shekhar Mohanty, reported in 2007 (7) SCC 394 the Honble Apex Court held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by the court overruling all decisions, in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings. In the present case, admittedly the First Information Report has been lodged on 29.05.2001, regarding the same day of the occurrence. As such, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Safik/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 414

Statute Text:
Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. Assisting in concealment or disposal of stolen property, knowing it to be stolen. Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.