HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2604 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/A1 who is stated to be an advocate is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468, 471, 406/34 IPC along with others. Even though the offence took place in the year 2001 filing of charge sheet by the police in the year 2009 is not barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. in this case since limitation has to be computed with reference to the offence for which maximum sentence of imprisonment is provided by law. Since the offence under Section 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, charge sheet is not barred by limitation. It is alleged that the second respondent - de facto complainant who was working in Kuwait, had to return to India due to war and that therefore she got Rs.1,75,000/- as war compensation from that country and that therefore in order to obtain the said amount the de facto complainant approached A1 who demanded fees of Rs.25,000/- for the said purpose and that the de facto complainant paid Rs.3,000/- out of the demanded fees and that A1 took her passport and all the other documents. It is further alleged that in spite of obtaining her passport and all other documents, A1 did not arrange for getting the amount to her and instead joined hands with others who are A2 to A4 and that A4 impersonating her as the de facto complainant withdrew the amount and that A1 introduced A4 as the de facto complainant. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A1 did not introduce A4 to the bank and that A1 only attested certain papers relating to A4 in his capacity as a notary and that he has no role in withdrawing war compensation payable to the first respondent. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet before the Magistrate. Having regard to the allegations in the charge sheet filed by the police after investigation, it is for the trial Court to go through the evidence on record in withdrawing war compensation payable to the first respondent by A2 to A4 and others. Having regard to the definite allegations made against A1, it cannot be said that there is no triable case against A1. It is for A1 to prove that he merely attested certain papers as notary and he did not introduce A4 to the bank. I do not find any valid grounds for quashing proceedings insofar as A1 is concerned. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. 30th December 2011 Rns