RANCHI, India, Sept. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 19:

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gomo R.P.F. Post Case No.126 of 2019 (RA21625/19) including the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by which the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 145 & 146 of the Railways Act, 1989.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the complaint, the last cause of action for the complaint arose on 26.07.2019, but the complaint was filed only on 31.08.2020 i.e. more than one year from the date of the knowledge of the alleged occurrence and it is then submitted that as the maximum punishment provided in Section 145 of the Railways Act is six months and fine and similarly the maximum punishment provided under Section 146 of the Railways Act is also six months or with fine or with both, therefore the period of limitation shall be one year, as the offence is punishable with a imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, as provided under Section 468(2)(a) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that as the cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned beyond the period of limitation without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, hence, the same is not sustainable in law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jawed Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024 JHHC 2856, submits that in para-10 of the said judgment, this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the accused persons does not come into the picture at all till the process is issued but this position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution but in case of delay in launching the prosecution certainly, the accused person of the case is entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay is condoned, in view of the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhary vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) reported in 2008 AIR SC 1937. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.

5. Learned C.G.C. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=QnBUxJ6a3gIx%2B5SFrUiAoJZyssf0zWMPg%2FLBIxU5E%2FZjZbT5df9b2D6bZRE%2Bw7%2F7&caseno=Cr.M.P./740/2021&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010111332021&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.