Bhagirath vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 16364 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6842/2019

1. Bhagirath S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Bhiyani, P.s. Ladnu, District Nagaur.

2. Mintu S/o Shri Luna Ram, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Kumhar, R/o Ward No. 3, Ladnu, District Nagaur.

3. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Mali, R/o Jorawarpura, Ladnu, District Nagaur.

----Petitioners Versus State, Through P.p.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

                                    Order

27/10/2021

The present misc. petition has been preferred for quashing

the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 22/2019 (State vs. Bhawani

Shankar & Ors.) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Ladnu, District Nagaur, whereby the learned court below has taken

cognizance against the petitioner under Section 3/4 of the

Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no

dispute on the point that the offence was committed by the

petitioners on 06/12/2017 and after filing the complaint, learned

Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence vide order

dated 07/01/2019 i.e. after one year from the date of commission

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6842/2019]

of the offence. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that in view of

the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C, learned Court below was

not right in proceeding against the petitioners by way of taking

cognizance in the matter as the same is barred by limitation.

Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the

petitioners in the case of Sainath vs. State of Rajasthan passed

in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2390/2016 decided by this

Court on 23.11.2016.

Learned public prosecutor has fairly submitted that the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

cannot be disputed in the light of the certified copies of the order-

sheets produced before this Court and he fairly concedes that the

cognizance in the present case has been taken beyond the period

of limitation prescribed as per Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and I

have perused the order dated 07/01/2019, whereby learned trial

Court has taken cognizance.

Admittedly, as per the complaint filed before learned trial

Court, the offence was committed on 06/12/2017 and the

cognizance has been taken by learned trial Court on 07/01/2019.

The punishment provided for the offence committed by the

petitioner falls under the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance

and as per Section 3 of the said Ordinance, the maximum

conviction of first offence is for a period which may be extended

up to 6 months or fine which may be extended to Rs.500. Section

4 of the said Ordinance provides the conviction and fine not

exceeding to Rs.500/- and imprisonment for a term which may not

be extended to six months. Thus, on both the counts, the period

of limitation prescribed as per Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. is

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6842/2019]

maximum one year and in view of the admitted facts, learned

Court below has committed an error while taking cognizance

against the petitioners vide order dated 07/01/2019.

In view of the discussions made above and the judgment of

this Court in the case of Sainath (supra), the proceedings before

the learned Magistrate below cannot be continued as the same are

barred by limitation.

Accordingly, the present misc. petition is allowed. The

proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ladnu,

District Nagaur, in Criminal Case No. 22/2019 (State vs. Bhawani

Shankar & Ors.) are quashed and set aside.

The stay application also stands disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

7-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)