IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.55343 of 2007 SADANAND SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. L.K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Advocate For the State : Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, A.P.P. 4 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application filed by the complainant before me, seeking quashing of the order of cognizance dated 11.06.2007, passed by learned S.D.J.M. Kahalgaon in Kahalgaon P. S. Case No. 391/2005 instituted on 23.10.2005 (G.R. No. 2925). The relevant facts as submitted and appears from the material available on record is that the applicants name finds place in the concerned voter list at more than one places and as alleged in spite of the notice issued to him by the competent authority no prayer for deletion of the names leaving one suitable place was ever made. Accordingly, complaint was lodged after inquiry and cognizance was taken whereas some materials by way of Annexures – 2, 3 & 4 that the applicant has already intimated the concerned authorities to delete his name in the voter list finding other places than one of his choice. Moreover, offence if any was attracted with respect to Section 31 of the Representation of People Act. 1950 which reads as follows: 2 “ Making false declarations – If any person makes in connection with – (a) the preparation, revision or correction of an electoral roll, or (b) the inclusion or exclusion of any entry in or from an electoral roll, a statement or declaration in writing which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” The offence punishable with imprisonment of a term of which may extend to one year or with fine or with both the cognizance ought to have taken within one year as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But, in the instant case the alleged offence is dated 23.10.2005, but cognizance has been taken on 11.06.2007, without mentioning condonation of delay apparently the impugned order has been passed after much more than a year accordingly it is not sustainable. In the result, the application stands allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)