Jay Gobind Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

Jay Gobind Prasad vs State of Bihar

Disposition Petition allowed Court Patna Decided Mar 15, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/121245

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/121245
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: P.K. Sinha, J.
Decided On: Mar 15, 2002
Case Number: Cri. Misc. No. 31817 of 2000
Subject: ;Criminal
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - 2. Only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well for some offences under the Penal Code.

Key legal issue: ;Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Essential Commodities Act - Sections 7; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 468; Indian Penal Code

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jay Gobind Prasad

Respondent

State of Bihar

Legal References

Acts: Essential Commodities Act - Sections 7; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 468; Indian Penal Code

Court's Analysis

Prior History: P.K. Sinha, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
2. Only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well for some offences under the Penal Code. However, the learned Special Judge by the impu

Excerpt

- - 2. only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late fir was lodged against the petitioner under section 7 of the essential commodities act as well for some offences under the penal code.p.k. sinha, j.1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned addl. p.p. and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.2. only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late fir was lodged against the petitioner under section 7 of the essential commodities act as well for some offences under the penal code. however, the learned special judge by the impugned order dated 28-8-2000 had taken cognizance of offence only under section 7 of the essential commodities act, learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case offence could be punishable for a maximum period of two years even if it was taken that a case punishable under section 7 of the essential commodities act was made out which was denied, and that the cognizance of offence could not have been taken on 28-8-2000, after more than 7 years of the date of occurrence in violation of section 468 of the code of criminal procedure.3. from perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned special judge jamui has mentioned in the order the different courts through which this case had travelled and then noted that in this case cognizance of offence had not been taken and then took cognizance of offence. this can hardly be said to be the proper explanation under section 473 of the code of criminal procedure for not taking cognizance of offence within statutory period prescribed under section 468 of the cr.p.c.4. learned addl. p.p. does not dispute that cognizance of offence was taken beyond the period granted under section 468 of the criminal procedure code.5. this being so this application is allowed and impugned order dated 28-6-2000 and the consequential criminal proceeding in relation to chakai p.s. case no. 16 of 1993 are hereby quashed.

Full Judgment

P.K. Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. and with their consent this petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

2. Only point that was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the date of occurrence in the case was on 10-2-1993 on which late FIR was lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act as well for some offences under the Penal Code. However, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order dated 28-8-2000 had taken cognizance of offence only under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances of the case offence could be punishable for a maximum period of two years even if it was taken that a case punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was made out which was denied, and that the cognizance of offence could not have been taken on 28-8-2000, after more than 7 years of the date of occurrence in violation of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Special Judge Jamui has mentioned in the order the different Courts through which this case had travelled and then noted that in this case cognizance of offence had not been taken and then took cognizance of offence. This can hardly be said to be the proper explanation under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for not taking cognizance of offence within statutory period prescribed under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Learned Addl. P.P. does not dispute that cognizance of offence was taken beyond the period granted under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. This being so this application is allowed and impugned order dated 28-6-2000 and the consequential criminal proceeding in relation to Chakai P.S. Case No. 16 of 1993 are hereby quashed.

Same Court & Year Patna · 2002 Same Parties Jay Gobind Prasad vs State of Bihar Same Subject ;Criminal Same Judge P.K. Sinha, J. Acts & Sections Essential Commodities Act - Sections 7; Code of Criminal Proc...

;Criminal