..4SJ^ *%. ^-.J\ i -^ .';L. ^&^h »I-HC-22; '^J! --f'V'~P'' ^V ^fSS^- ,y-P ^ 3ll^[qil h-U* 3V^S ?b^lNi <ifia ,MSW ..*£-? ,w IS^ 's^ '^lplRPf, afll'y'is, fawi'My 3TI^?T 'q^? 111CTI •g^lj^————••-—————--^F^ 200 'I^^CT' -—a. sn^i ^aTWdfsci (Sinole Bench; Hon'bl^ Cr.M.P. APPLICANT/ Revisionist (Petition under Art.22(iof Constitution of India) 1. Shri H^mdatt Tiwari, 70 yrs., S/o Late Bhuneshi|var Prasad- Tiwari, 97 Nagar Nigam Colony, l^aipur. 2. Usha Ti[vari, w/o Shri Hemdatt Tiwari, Nagar Nigam C41ony, Raipur. Verlsus RESPON&ENT/ Non-applicant Smt. Savitr| Tiwari, 56 yrs., W/o Shri Hemdatt Tiwari, Preirjinkunj Bhawan, Shikshak Colony, Behir.d Dr. Sar-bhai l^ospital, Danganiya, Raipur. 08.12.2008 Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate f| This petition is directed agai in Criminal Revision No.126/07 whi Judge, Raipur has rejected the confirmed the order dated 27.7.20( by the learned Additional Chief Srievance of the petitioner i; of the Cr.P.C. against taking cogi Section 494 of IPC regarding limitc impugned orders. The objection )• that the offence punishable under maximum imprisonment of seven ye limitdtion ct)i^[(r)<i1Ti +11^''^ Is^ <^i-^.i< '^siPOTsn^r Mr. Justice Dhirendra Mishra) No.951/08 Judlcial t>r the petitioner. ifist the order dated 30.7.2008 passed \ ^reby learned 11 Additional District r^vision petition of the petitioner and (p7 passed in Cr-iminal Case No.1286/06 Magistrate, Raipur. ^ that his objection under Section 468 (lizance of offence punishable under has been wrongly rejected by the ^as been rejected only on the ground Section 494 is punishable with the |ars and therefore, cognizance of the r^^^ M Bi ^1/" 1: IXI-HC-22: ••.i.s-fl-' .s? SSR^^" sn^r^T K;-t sf^s ShHlch ^rfecf m@s -^gi% ^^'=qp(RPf, dTflti'ld, ^''ii'yy 3iT^T ira^T 11*ICTI tt)t|l<») "^ 200 fN^T" SffT^T'^fT^R ^rft^T same can be taken at any time a^ cognizance of such offence. The whe.re no limitation is prescrib^d, prescribed under Article 137 of the| Heard learned counsel for thd Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. re<tds "468. Bar to taking cogniza|hce limitation.- (l)Except as o-| Code, no Court shall take category specified in sub-se^c period of limitation. (2) the period of limitation shjall q. six months, jf the offejice b. one year, if the offer|c< for a term exceeding c. three years, if the offi for a term exceeding years. (3) For the purposes of this relation to offence which determined with reference «bl<ll<'t<fl'< *<14<-if'? fe^ <fa«$i< ^ SlPtIH 3D^T no limitation is provided for Taking :ourts below ought to have held that I, then limitation of three years Limitation Act would be applicable. petitioner. thus;- after lapse of the period of rherwise provided elsewhere in this cognizance of an offence of the ption (2), after the expiry of the be- \ is punishable with fine only; ce ispunishable with imprisonment year; ^nce is punishable with imprisonment |one year but not exceeding three ofie section the period of limitation, in jmay be tried together, shall be [o the offence which is punishable lja-HC-22 'l 6B ^' 311^1'3il h-\\* sn^r WRRT'gfttt -g^ •^w\v\t{, WV\WIQ, hwwy, 7. 31T§!?T 'q^7 11NCTI Sh*<|ch •M 200 IN^^T' 311^1 ^RITWHf??! -^ with the more severe punis[iment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment." tHat The plain and unambiguous the Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear 468 where the offence for whichl with fine only, the prosecution mu: the date of commission of offence.l Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the period o1| punishable with imprisonment for a sub-section (2) (c) of the Section| with imprisonment for a term exce4 years, then the period of limitatii cognizance. There is no limitation^ punishable with imprisonment for a So far as the argument of 14 wherevno limitation is prescribed, tl under Article 137 of the Limitationl the Limitation Act does not apply profitably refer to Para 14 of the matter of Japani Sahoo Vs. (2007) 7 5CC 394, which is rep chi^'ifl'f Hl4dl' ^ Is^t ^.^T^K ^7 SlPOT 3{1^?t l^nguage of the aforesaid provisions of under sublsection (2) (a) of Section the accused is charged is punishable tt be launched within six months from Similarly, under sub-section (2) (b) of limitation is one year if the offence is term not exceeding one year and under 1468 wher-e the offence is punishable [ding one year but not exceeding three' (n provided is three years for taking prescribed for the offence which is term exceeding three years. 14arned counsel for the petitioner that jie limitation of three years prescribed Act would be applicable is concerned, |t'o the criminal proceedings. We may |udgmentof Hon'ble Apex Court in the Ch|andra Sekhar Mohanty reported in prodi|iced herein below:- | j^^^T? iXI-HC-22 ^ sn^rqff k-w* •sn^i aii ^f?g -s^ '4i'i|ici''i, y-^'y'i<e, faciwy sn^r iRra? IffWT »*11«() "OT. 200 fa'b^iil' 3D^t ^OTWdfef -•A' "14. The general rule of crimj dies". The principle is r nullum tempus aut locus\ bor to Crown in proc Limitation Act, 1963 proceedings unless th| provisions to that effee 131 and 132 of the Act.l offence is considered al thesociety even though] individual. Normally, in launched by the State throw away prosecutiori Mere delay in approachl itself afford a ground may be a relevant verdict." no substance in the petition, the accordingly, it is hereby dismissed a|t the admission stage itself. . - --SdJ- ^ »bl'l|t<-f''fl-< ^WvS 4iS^6 <fa'tdl< ^SlPOT 311^1 |nal justice is that "a crime never sflected in the well-known maxim \occurrit rey/(lapse of time is no seding against offenders). The does not apply to criminal :re are express and specific •, for instance, Articles 114, 115, It is settled law that a erimir'al a wrong against the State and |it has been committed against an ierious offences, prosecution is a^id a court of law has no ptwer to solely qn the ground of delay. ng a court of law would not by /' •fjor dismissing the case though it ciilcumstance in reaching a final For the foregoing reasons, tl^is Court is of the opinion that there is same deserves to be dismissed and l!- ^^& ^"s^