Mohit Lal Mahto @ Naresh Mahto Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal-indian penal code, 1860-section 414 read with section 468 (2)(c) of cr. pc-cognizance on the charge of concealment of stolen property- cognizance taken after more than seven years from alleged date of occurrence-law provides a period of three years as the period of limitation for taking cognizance for those offences in which punishment is provided for imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years-impugned order barred by limitation under section 468 (2)(c)-order of cognizance quashed. - constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. amareshwar sahay, j.1. heard the parties.2. the petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 04.08.2007, taking cognizance of the offence under section 414 ipc solely on the ground that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation as prescribed under section 468(2)(c) of the cr.p.c.3. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the fir (annexure-2) lodged against the petitioner on 17.06.2000, it would appear that the commission of the offence under section 414 ipc has been alleged to have taken place on 17.06.2000, whereas the police submitted charge sheet in the case against the petitioner under section 414 ipc on 30.07.2007, on the basis of which the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 414 ipc on 04 08.2007, i.e. after more that seven years from the alleged dated of occurrence.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that section 468(2)(c) of the cr.p.c. provides a period of three years only as the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years. he further submitted that section 414 ipc provides punishment for a maximum period of 3 years imprisonment and, therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate on 04.08.2007 is apparently barred by law of limitation prescribed under section 468(2)(c) of the cr.p.c., because it was taken after an expiry of about seven year from the date of alleged offence of commission.5. for ready reference sub-section (1) and (2) of section 468 cr.p.c. and section 414 ipc are being quoted herein below: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.414 i.p.c- whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with, or with both.6. from a bare reading of the above mentioned provisions of section 468 cr.p.c and section 414 i.p.c quoted above, it appears that the law provides a period of three years as the period of limitation for taking cognizance for those offences in which punishment in provided for imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.7. in the present case, admittedly, the alleged offence took place on 17.6.2000, whereas cognizance has been taken for the said offence on 4.8.2000 i.e. after lapse of more then seven years. therefore, apparently the cognizance taken against the petitioner on 4.8.2007 is barred by limitation as prescribed under section 468(2)(c) cr.p.c.8. in this view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under section 414 i.p.c in connection with ramgarh p.s. case no. 153 of 2000 dated 17.06.2000, g.r. no. 1221 of 2000, t.r. no. 725 of 2008, pending before the judicial magistrate, 1st class, hazaribagh, is hereby, quashed.