IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT (1) Ved Prakash VS. Mahendra Ardawatia & anr. (S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 1329 of 2008) (2) Mahendra Ardavatia VS. State of Raj. & Anr. (S.B.Cr. Revision Petition No. 1902 of 2008) Under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated August 21, 2008 of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhunjhunu, in case No.241 of 2008 Date of Order : November 24, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Suresh Sahni & Shri Ram Mohan Sharma for Ved Prakash Mr. B.M. Sharma for Mahendra Ardawtia Mr.B.N. Sandu, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT : REVISION PETITION NO. 1329 OF 2008 : Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner Ved Prakash in S.B.Criminal Revisison Petition, withdraws from the case. The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. REVISION PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2008 : In S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1902 of 2008, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court passed order for taking cognizance under section 323 and 341 IPC vide impugned order dated August 21, 2008. In the instant matter the case was registered on Feb. 23, 2001 at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu bearing FIR No. 46 of 2001. As per the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for taking cognizance expired in year 2002, but the learned trial court took cognizance of the matter on August 21,2008, which is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned trial court. Mr. B.M. Sharma, learned counsel contended that the trial court is not justified in taking cognizance against the petitioner in the light of section 468 Cr.P.C. 4. In view of the above, the trial court is directed to rehear the matter and decide it as a fresh in the light of section 468 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties and if it finds that cognizance can be taken against the petitioner, the trial court shall take cognizance as per the provisions of law. Hence this revision petition is allowed and the order dated August 21, 2008 taking cognizance against the petitioner is quashed and set aside. 5. Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/