2003 (8) TMI 568

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tire criminal proceedings including the order dated 4.2.2000 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, had taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2. 3. The appellant No. 1 was the Chairman of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna. Prior to joining the Board, he served as Professor in the Department of Geology, Patna University and he had teaching experience of 26 years. The respondent No. 2 was an employee of the Pollution Control Board. On account of certain irregularities and misconduct, he was dismissed from service after holding enquiry. He challenged the order of dismissal before the High Court in a writ petition. He l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ognizance is barred or not." 8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short 'the CJM') by the order, dated 4.2.2000 held that considering the date of occurrence being 24.9.1994 and the charge-sheet having been submitted in the year 1998 after a period of three years, bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'the Code') was attracted but on the petition filed by the respondent No. 2 on 6.1.2000, the learned magistrate condoned the delay exercising power under Section 473 of the Code stating that from 11.11.1994 till 5.10.1999 further proceedings in the court of the learned magistrate should be construed as stayed in view of the orders passed in Criminal Misc. No. 16672 of 1994. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petition filed by the appellants taking a view that the CJM had power to condone the delay under Section 473 of the Code and as such there was no need to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that having regard to bar contained under Section 468(2) of the Code, the CJM as well as the High Court committed a serious error in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings; it is clear from the records that the cognizance was taken by the CJM almost after a period of four years; in the light of the order passed on 6.2.1995 by the High Court in earlier proceeding, there was no scope to contend that the proceedings before the Magistrate were stayed. 11. Learned counsel for the respond....