IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.57606 of 2007 1. DINESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE KHUSHI LAL SINGH. 2. GIRJA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI DINESHWAR PRASAD SINGH BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SABALPUR, NAWAL TOLA, P.S. – SONEPUR, DISTRICT – SARAN (CHAPRA). …………………… PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHIV DAYAL PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE LUXMAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SABALPUR, NAWAL TOLA BATROLLI, P.S. – SONEPUR, DISTRICT – SARAN (CHAPRA). …………………… OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 02/ 07.04.2010 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 24.03.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Trial No. 10 of 2007 whereby and whereunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 447, 426, 341 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order on the ground that the occurrence is of the year 2000 as apparent from the First Information Report itself dated 17.09.2000 whereas the cognizance has been taken after more than three years regarding offence under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment under Sections 447 and 426 of the IPC is three months and that of under Section 341 of the IPC is one month whereas under section 323 of the IPC punishment is of one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that limitation for taking cognizance of the offence has been prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further contended that limitation for the - 2 - offences under which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate come under sub clause 2(b) of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that is one year from the date of occurrence. Hence, it was contend that the period of limitation is only one year and, apparently, the cognizance of the offence has been taken after more than a year and that the learned lower court has not taken into consideration the aspect of condoning the delay in the impugned order. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence under the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and hence it is set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)