IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 2790 of 2011 ------------------------- ST.1250/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------- 1. P.V.JOHN, AGED 60 YEARS, NARAYANEEYAM, MULLASSERY HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SHIMIL P.JOHN, S/O.P.V.JOHN, NARAYANEEYAM, MULLASSERY HOUSE, THOTTAKKARA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. 2. STANLY PAUL, S/O.K.PAUL, SAM VILLA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679101. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. R. REMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 2790 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A : TRUE OCPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.720/2010 OF THE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION DATED 16.07.2010. ANNEXURE B : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A. ANNEXURE C : TRUE OCPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM, OTTAPALAM. ANNEXURE D : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE C. ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPIES OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 20.07.2011 FROM THE JFCM, OTTAPALAM. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE N.K.Balakrishnan, J. --------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2790 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in S.T.No.1250/2011 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottapalam. The case was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate on a private complaint filed by the second respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The attack was mainly on the ground that the incident took place on 14.07.2010, whereas the cognizance was taken only on 12.08.2011 and so, it was beyond the period of one year. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad. This submission is resisted by the learned counsel for the second respondent who would submit that the complaint was in fact filed before the learned Magistrate on 19.02.2011 and so, the crucial date is the date of filing of the complaint and not the date on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. In support of that submission, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar CRMC 2790/2011 2 Mohanty (AIR 2007 SC 2762). 2. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex Court, the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be sustained. Hence, this petition is only to be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that second petitioner is working at Thiruvananthapuram and so the learned Magistrate may be directed to allow him to seek exemption from personal appearance. Second petitioner can file a petition before the learned Magistrate under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure raising all contentions with regard to the same, in which case, learned Magistrate, after notice to the complainant, will pass appropriate orders on the appliction. This petition is disposed of as above. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv