Criminal Miscellanious No.25384 OF 2007 ********* (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) ***** ABDUL BARI SIDDIQUI @ ABDULBARI SIDHKI, SON OF LATE ALI AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUPASPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. PRESENTLY, RESIDING AT 3, OFF POLO ROAD, POLICE STATION HAWAI ADDA IN THE TOWN AND DISTRICT OF PATNA..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LAKHAN MOCHI, BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER, BENIPUR, POLICE SATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2007 passed in Bahera Police Station Case No. 243 of 2005 (G.R. No. 247 of 2005/T.R. No. 716 of 2007) by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 171 (H) & 188 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 133 of the Representation of Peoples Act. 2. The allegation is that the informant was deputed to monitor the violation of the moral code of conduct in the Bihar Assembly Election, 2005. It is said that when the informant reached at Kodbanna village where a election 2 meeting of Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, the President of Rashtriya Janada Dal was organized in favour of the petitioner, Abdul Bari Siddiqui, he found that several persons were wearing the mark of lantern without the permission of the Election Commission. On the basis of this fact, the Bahera Police Station Case No. 243 of 2005 was instituted. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment for the offences under Section 171 (H) of the Indian Penal Code is fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-, for the offences under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 200/- or with both. The punishment for the offences under Section 133 of the Representations of Peoples Act is simple imprisonment which may extend to one year. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of cognizance is bad as it is taken beyond the period of limitation. Sub- section 2 of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages that the period of limitation shall be six months if the offence is punishable with fine, one year for the offences having punishment for a term not exceeding one year and three years for the offences having punishment with imprisonment for a term 3 exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. As per Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of limitation would be from the date on which the offence was committed. 4. From the facts aforesaid, it is apparent that the maximum punishment which can be awarded in this case is simple imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, as such this Court finds that the order taking cognizance dated 08.03.2007 is barred by limitation as it has been passed beyond the period of limitation as the occurrence took place on 09.11.2005 and cognizance was taken on 08.03.2007. 5. Accordingly, the order dated 08.03.2007 passed in Bahera Police Station Case No. 243 of 2005 (G.R. No. 247 of 2005/T.R. No. 716 of 2007) by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Benipur is quashed. 6. In the result, this application is allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 19TH MAY, 2011 N.A.F.R./ANAND