The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC NO.2915 of 2018 (In the matter of application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973). Surendra Kumar Behera … Petitioner -versus- State of Orissa … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S.Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.R.Roul, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT :12.09.2023 G. Satapathy, J. This application U/S.482 of Cr.P.C. seeks to quash the order passed on 25.03.2017 by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil in G.R. Case No. 174 of 2010 taking cognizance of offences vide Annexure-2 and the order unsuccessfully assailing the aforesaid order taking cognizance of CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 1 of 9 offence, passed on 21.08.2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2017 vide Annexure-3. 2. The facts in precise are, in the course of inspection of the Railway sidings at Barbil on 25.01.2010, 27 rake loads of iron ore were found dispatched to different places through Rail from 01.01.2010 to 25.01.2010, but the consigner and consignee of such transaction were neither lessee nor licensees of Joda circle. On suspecting the aforesaid quantity of dispatched iron rakes were to be product of theft and connivance of the Railway Authority, the Deputy Director of Mines, Joda, District Keonjhar
Legal Reasoning
lodged an FIR on 10.03.2010 before the IIC, Barbil Police Station against unknown persons which paved the way for registration of Barbil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2010 and ultimately, the same ended up with submission of charge sheet in C.S. No. 30 dated 07.03.2017 against the petitioner and 39 others for CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 2 of 9 commission of different offences, but the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil on consideration of materials and finding prima facie satisfaction took cognizance of offence U/Ss. 379, 420, 468, 471, 120(B) of the IPC which was assailed by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua in Criminal Revision on the ground of limitation, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Champua after taking note of the fact of taking cognizance of various offences by the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil considers it inappropriate to segregate the offences against the present petitioner and dismissed the criminal revision. Hence, the present CRLMC by the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
3. Mr.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner challenges the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge refusing to interfere the order taking cognizance of offence on a very short ground of “Bar CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 3 of 9 to taking cognizance of offence after lapse of period of limitation”. Mr.Mohanty has further submitted that since charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner for offence U/S. 379/120-B of the IPC after gap of seven years and the limitation for taking cognizance of such offences being three years in terms of Section 469 of the Cr.P.C., the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently the revisional order refusing to interfere with the order taking cognizance of offence are bad in the eye of law and both the orders are, accordingly required to be quashed. On the aforesaid submissions, Mr.Mohanty prays to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offence and consequently the revisional order. 4. On the other hand, Mr.S.R.Roul, learned ASC has, however, supported the impugned order and consequently the order passed in the revision by submitting inter alia that the aforesaid orders being in CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 4 of 9 accordance with law cannot be faulted with and the present CRLMC being unmerited is liable to be dismissed. Mr.Roul accordingly prays to dismiss the CRLMC. 5. A plain glance of the materials placed on record, it admittedly appears that FIR was lodged against unknown persons on 10.03.2010 and it was registered vide Barbil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2010 for commission of offences U/S. 379/120B of the IPC and the occurrence or offence as noted in Col. No. 3(b) of the FIR discloses the date of occurrence or offence to be from 01.01.2010 to 25.01.2010 and charge sheet No. 30 dated 07.03.2017 was received in the Court for offence U/Ss. 379/420/468/471/120B of the IPC against the petitioner and others, but on finding prima facie materials and satisfaction, the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil took cognizance of aforesaid offences by the impugned order passed on 25.03.2017. The learned JMFC while taking cognizance for aforesaid CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 5 of 9 offences has, however, observed in the impugned order that he is prima facie satisfied for commission of offence U/S. 379/120B of the IPC against the petitioner and 19 others. 6. Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Code”) provides for limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences and Section 468 of the Code prescribes bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and Clause(c) of Sub-Section-2 to 468 of Code prescribes a period of three years for taking cognizance of offence, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years, but Sub-Section 3 which was inserted subsequently by way of amendment vide Act 45 of 1978, Section 33 with effect from 18.12.1978 clarifies that for the purpose of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 6 of 9 to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. In the present case, there is no dispute about learned JMFC, Barbil taking cognizance of offences U/Ss. 379/420/468/471/120B of the IPC, out of which offence U/Ss. 420/468/471 of the IPC are punishable up to seven years and, therefore, there is no limitation period for taking cognizance of such offences. Further, cognizance of offence is taken, but cognizance is not taken against accused persons and by no stretch of imagination, it can be said in this case that the learned J.M.F.C., Barbil took cognizance of offence U/S. 379/120B of IPC against the petitioner. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned order taking cognizance is barred by limitation is unmerited and accordingly rejected. 7. Another significant point of law is when 2nd Revision against an order is not maintainable in terms CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 7 of 9 of Sec. 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., whether the said order after it was unsuccessfully challenged in the revision before the Sessions Judge can be impugned again before the High Court in the guise of exercise of power U/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. This question has been answered in Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another; (1997) 4 SCC 241, wherein the Apex Court in para-10 has held as under:- “ Ordinarily, when revision has been barred by Section 397(3) of the Code, a person—accused/ complainant--- cannot be allowed to take recourse to the revision to High Court U/S. 397(1) or under inherent power of High Court U/S. 482 of the Code since it may amount to circumvention of the provisions of Section 397(3) or Section 397(2) of the Code. It is seen that High Court has suo motu power U/S. 401 and continuous supervisory jurisdiction U/S. 483 of the Code. So when the High Court on examination of the record finds that there is a grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the Courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 8 of 9 at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue.” 8. In view of the aforesaid admitted position of law and taking into account the fact that the learned Magistrate being satisfied with materials placed before him has taken cognizance of offences, some of which are punishable up to seven years, the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order taking cognizance of offences has no merit and consequently, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance of offences and consequently the revisional order confirming the order taking cognizance of offences.
Decision
9. In the result, the CRLMC stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Sep-2023 15:37:45 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 12th of September, 2023/kishore CRLMC No.2915 of 2018 Page 9 of 9