IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (1) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.1020 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Om Kumar Malik …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents (2) CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.571 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Ram Kumar Tayal …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: July 22, 2010 Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the applicants Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Since both these applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicants against the same Criminal Case No.291 of 2006 and against the summoning order dated 13.12.2005, hence, both these applications are being disposed of by this one and common order. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), the petitioners/applicants have sought quashing of the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.291 of 2006 (old no.446 of 2005), State Vs. Ram Kumar and ohter, relating to offences punishable under Sections 379, 434, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the IPC) 2 and one punishable 4/10 of U.P. Protection of Trees Act, 1976 (for short, the Act) and the charge sheet submitted by the police in case crime no.1 of 2000. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 Govind Singh Sarpanch moved an application to the Patti Patwari, Buggi 5, District Pauri Garhwal on 15.5.2000 stating therein that in the month of December 1999, at the time of construction of road by P.W.D., the applicants, namely, Om Kumar Malik, Junior Engineer and Ram Kumar Tayal, Assistant Engineer of P.W.D., cut down the trees without obtaining the permission from the concerned authority. With these averments, the FIR was got registered at P.S. Buggi 5, District Pauri Garhwal on 16.5.2000 under Sections 119/201/379/434 of IPC and 4/10 of the Act. After lodging of the FIR, the matter was investigated and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the I.O. in the court on 13.12.2005. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal vide order dated 13.12.2005 taken the cognizance of the offence and summoned the applicants u/Ss 379, 434, 201 of IPC and 4/10 of the Act. Against the said charge sheet and the summoning order dated 13.12.2005, the applicants have preferred the present C482 application before this Court. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the cognizance order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, Pauri Garhwal is barred by limitation u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. Before further discussion, it is pertinent to mention Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:- 3 “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-(1)Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. [(3) For the purposes of this Section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]” Sections 379, 434 and 201 of IPC are also essential to mention here, which read as under:- 379. Punishment for theft.-Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 434. Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land-mark fixed by public authority.-Whoever commits mischief by destroying or moving any land-mark fixed by the authority of a public servant, or by any act which renders such land-mark less useful as such, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 201.- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.-Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.-and if the offence is punishable with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with 4 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Section 4 and 10 of U.P. Protection of Trees Act, 1976 reads as under:- 4. Restriction on felling and removal of tree.-Except as provided in this Act or the rules made thereunder, no person shall- (a) fell any tree standing on any land, whether included in a holding or not; (b) cut, remove or otherwise dispose of any tree other than a tree which is completely dead and has fallen without the aid of human agency on any such land. 10. Penalty for felling or removal of trees in contravention of Section 4.-Whoever fells or causes to be felled any standing tree, or cuts, removes or otherwise disposes of any fallen tree, in contravention of the provisions of Section 4, or contravenes any condition of any permission granted under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. A perusal of the Section 468 sub-clause 3 of Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. In the present case, the more severe punishment is u/s 379 of IPC, in which the maximum punishment provided is three years, or fine, or with both. Further, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 13.12.2005, however, the FIR was lodged on 16.5.2000, which means the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate after about 5 years and 7 months whereas as per Section 468(2)(c) the period of limitation is three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Hence, in 5 view of the fact that in the present case, the period of limitation is three years, the cognizance order dated 13.12.2005 is barred by limitation of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and, on this ground, the cognizance order dated 13.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal, is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, both the applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 13.12.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Lansdowne, District Pauri Garhwal as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.291 of 2006 (old no.446 of 2005), State Vs. Ram Kumar and other, are set aside. Interim orders dated 13.12.2006 and 20.7.2006 passed by this Court in C482 No.1020 of 2006 and C482 No.571 of 2006, respectively, stand vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 22.07.2010 RG