IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28326 of 2008 KRISHNA BALLABH PANDEY, SON OF CHANDRA MOHAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHOTA BRAHAM TOLI, BRAHAMPUR, P.S. BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTRICT SARAN AT CHAPRA. ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR CHAPRA, SARAN. For the petitioner : Mr. Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P. ----------- 2 21.6.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make correction in the first paragraph and prayer portion of the application. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.3.2007 and 16.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Saran and the order of the Sub- divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra. The offence alleged is under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code which amount to disobedience of the order of a public servant. The punishment for the said offence is simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to Rs. 200/- or with both. In case the said disobedience which causes danger to human life, health or safety, the punishment would extend to a term of six months with find which may extend to a sum of Rs. 1,000/- or with both. The only question raised on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner is that the order taking cognizance on 6.11.2006 for an offence which was committed on 4.9.2005 would be barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal 2 Procedure. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically states that where the punishment extends to the period not exceeding one year, the time for taking cognizance is one year from the date on which the occurrence has taken place. The facts aforesaid would reveal that in fact cognizance has been taken after a period of one year. The Fast Track Court has rejected the revision application of the petitioner on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate or any Court taking cognizance has the power to condone the limitation for good reasons. Referring to the order of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in fact the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra had not exercised the power for condoning the delay and as such the observations made by the Fast Track Court appear to be unwarranted. I agree with the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the result, the order dated 23.3.2007, passed in Criminal Revision No. 316 of 2007/13 of 2007 and the order taking cognizance dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chapra in Trial No. 3622 of 2006 are quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)