1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2662 OF 2006 Sou.Shailaja Shashikant Bhat & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Amit Shete i/b Mr.Amit B. Borkar for the petitioners Mr.S.A.Ingawale for respondent no.2 and 3 Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for State CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 DATED : 30TH APRIL, 2008 P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Criminal Writ Petition has been filed to challenge the order of the Sessions Court dated 24.07.06 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioners on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioners lodged an F.I.R. alleging that respondent no.2 and 3 had committed 2 offences under sections 268, 338 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate took cognisance of the offences some time in 2001 although F.I.R.was lodged on 07.01.91. 3. The Sessions Court has held that it was necessary for the Magistrate to take cognisance of the offences within the period of limitation i.e. the period not exceeding two years from the date the F.I.R. was lodged. The Sessions Court has observed that since the cognisance was taken almost after 10 years, the complaint was required to be dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out the Judgment in the case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty reported in Vol. III SC Page 339 where the Supreme Court has observed that limitation must be computed from the date when the complaint was filed or the criminal proceedings were initiated and not from the date of the Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence or issuance of process by the court. This judgment squarely covers the facts involved in the present 3 petition. The offence took place on 02.01.91 and the F.I.R. was registered on 07.01.91. i.e.5 days after the alleged offence having been committed. The Sessions Court fell in error in dismissing the complaint. It may be that the Magistrate has taken cognisance of the offence only in 2001. However, that is not the relevant date for computing the limitation as held in the aforesaid judgment. 5. The judgment passed by the II Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in the Sessions Court, in Criminal Revision Application No.228 of 2004 is set aside. The complaint is restored to file. Rule made absolute. Petition is disposed of. Records and Proceedings be sent to the Trial Court forthwith. (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.)