IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.46308 of 2007 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, S/o Late Bhagwat Pd. Singh, R/o Marui, P.S. Roh, District – Nawada ………… Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …………. Opp. Party ----------- 3 20.1.2009 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Chaubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he was not named in the initial F.I.R. his name cropped up subsequently in course of investigation after four years and a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against him. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although he has been shown as an employee of the Primary Health Centre, Warsaliganj, he in fact had no role to play in the said centre and was as a matter of fact an employee of the Treasury Department at Warsaliganj and in that view of the matter he could not have participated in the misappropriation of any amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the Health Center. An employee in the Treasury Office has a very important role to play in passing bills and it is not known whether the bills of the Primary Health Department were dealt by this petitioner or not. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is given liberty to raise all the issues he has raised here at the time of framing of charge including his health grounds and his presently being well advanced in age. The petitioner has also raised the issue of limitation in this - 2 - case. The point is no more res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1985 PLJR 271) wherein it has been held that the issue of limitation is a question which needs to be raised and determined at the earliest stage before the Trial Court, since the question of limitation is a matter for consideration, computation and adjudication by it alone and where such a plea is raised it ought to be adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue. It was also held that the disputed issue of limitation cannot be properly raised directly in the High Court for the quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter even the question of deciding limitation is left open for discussion by the trial court. With the aforesaid observations this application is disposed of. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)