SAXENA, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred against the orders dated 9. 10. 92 and 18. 2. 92 passed by the learned A. M. J. M. No. l, Bikaner, whereby he took cognizance for the offences u/ss. 193 and 218 IPC by the first order and rejected petitioner's application dated 30. 4. 1992 by the second order.
(2.)THE skeletal facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that on an oral report lodged by Jetha Ram on 25. 6. 88, FIR No. 58 was drawn at Police Station, Ganga Shahar, Bikaner and a case u/ss. 324 and 307 IPC was registered against Bhura Ram for attempting to commit murder of his wife Smt. Hema by inflicting axe blows on her neck. On 25. 6. 88, petitioner Dr. Liyaqat Ali Gauri, who was posted as Medical Jurist in the P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner, examined her & found the following injuries on her person : - "1. A lacerated wound of 6 x 1/5 cm obliquely placed on neck on right lateral aspect 3 cm below right ear; 2. Abrasion of 4 x 0. 25 cm just below right ear; 3. A lacerated wound of 3. 5 cm x 0. 25 cm on right lateral aspect of neck; 4. Injured Smt. Hema complained of chest pain. Her skigram of skull and chest were taken on 7. 7. 88, which did not reveal any bony injury and, as such, the Radiologist opined that the injuries No. l to 4 of Smt. Hema were simple in nature.
After completion of investigation on 4. 8. 88, a challan was filed against Bhura Ram for the offences u/ss. 324 and 307 IPC in the court of learned AMJM No. l, Bikaner, who in turn, committed that case to the learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 18. 8. 88. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner, to whom the said case was transferred, framed charges for the offences under Ss. 323 and 307 IPC against Bhura Ram and after trial by his judgment dated 27. 10. 90 acquitted Bhura Ram because all the prosecution witnesses including injured Smt. Hema did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.

It appears that on 23. 7. 88, Champalal, the brother of injured Smt. Hema, filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, alleging that on the night intervening 24th and 25. 06. 1988, her brother-in-law Bhura Ram had inflicted axe blows on the neck of his sister Smt. Hema, but the Medical Jurist Dr. L. A. Gauri in the M. L. R. wrongly mentioned that injuries sustained by Smt. Hema were caused by blunt object. Thus, he said doctor had fabricated false evidence with an intent to save the accused Bhura Ram. He, therefore, requested that a Medical Board be constituted and Dr. L. A. Gauri be prosecuted. The S. P. , Bikaner forwarded the said application alognwith the case diary to the learned A. M. J. M. No. l, Bikaner, who by his order dated 27. 7. 88, directed the Superintendent, Associate Group of Hospitals to constitute a Medical Board. Accordingly, a Medical Board of three doctors was constituted, which, on 1. 8. 88, examined Smt. Hema, perused her Bed Head Ticket and operation notes dated 25. 6. 88 and opined that the injury No. l namely slightly curved linear scar with stitch marks measuring 3 cm obliquely placed retroauricular on right mastoid region and adjoining back of pinna of ear and injury No. 3 namely slightly curved linear scar with stitch marks measuring 2. 5cm placed on lateral aspect of base of neck on right side, were simple in nature and that injury No. 2 to wit linear scar with stitch marks placed slightly obliquely nearing to transverse plane extending from anterior border of right sternomastoid muscle to posteriorly, on the neck at junction region of upper and middle 1/3 of neck, was dangerous to life because it was extensive and implicating external jugular vein and other vessels of neck and, as such, it was grievous in nature. The Board further opined that as per description of injuries in local examination, the extent and structure involved in the injuries in operation notes and the scars of linear type were found, those injuries appeared to have been caused by a sharp weapon. It appears that on 3. 3. 89, the said Champalal again submitted an application to the S. P. , Bikaner for registering a case against the petitioner Liyaqat Ali Gauri for the offences u/ss. 218 and 192 IPC, which was sent to the S. H. O. , P. S. Sadar, Bikaner whereupon Crime No. 71 dated 18. 3. 89 was registered for the offences u/ss. 218 and 192 IPC. On 14. 11. 89, the S. P. , Bikaner requested the State Govt. to accord sanction for prosecution against the petitioner. The Personnel (A-3) Department of the State Govt. vide its order dated 10. 5. 91 accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 193 and 218 IPC. Thereafter, the police submitted challan against the petitioner on 18. 2. 92 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, who by his order dt. 18. 2. 92 took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 218 and 193 IPC. On 39. 4. 92, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Magistrate alleging that the police after investigation had filed challan against accused Bhura Ram, wherein the injury report and x-ray report and report of the Medical Board of Smt. Hema were filed; that the said case was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and decided by his judgment dated 27. 10. 90 acquitting the said accused and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Sec. 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr. P. C, no cognizance u/s. 193 IPC against the petitioner could have been taken against him, except on the complaint in writing by that court. It was further submitted in that application that the offence u/s 218 IPC was punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to three years or with fine or with both; that the alleged offence i. e. preparing a false M. L. R. was committed on 25. 6. 88 and that as per provisions of Section 467 (2) (c) Cr. P. C. the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such an offence was three years only, which expired on 25. 6. 91 and, as such, the impugned order dated 18. 2. 92 taking cognizance against the petitioner was illegal and barred by limitation and prayed that he may be discharged. The learned trial Magistrate vide his impugned order dated 9. 10. 92 rejected that application on the ground that by excluding the period from 14. 11. 89 to 14. 5. 91 which was consumed in procuring the sanction under S. 197 Cr. P. C, there was no bar in taking the cognizance against the petitioner for the offences u/ss. 218 and 193 IPC. The learned Magistrate also observed that since he had already taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner vide his order dated 18. 2. 92, the same could not be reviewed. He, accordingly, rejected the said application. Hence this petition.

I have heard Mr. M. L. Garg learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. S. Rathore, Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the learned lower court as also the record of Sessions Case No. 9/89, decided by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in extenso.

Mr. M. L. Garg has strenuously canvassed that admittedly the injury report of Smt. Hema, which was prepared by the petitioner, her x-ray report and the report of the Medical board were submitted alongwith the challan by the S. H. O. , P. S. Ganga Shahar, Bikaner against the accused Bhura Ram in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed that case to the learned Sessions Judge. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 27. 10. 90 acquitted accused Bhura Ram and did not make any observation that M. L. R. Ex. P. 13 of Smt. Hema was either a false or fabricated or incorrect document and also did not direct for filing a criminal complaint against the petitioner. In such circumstances, in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (i) of the Code, the learned Magistrate was not legally competent to take cognizance of the offence u/s. 193 IPC against the petitioner. His another limb of argument is that the sanction for prosecution against the petitioner was accorded by the State Govt. on 10. 5. 91 i. e. within three years from the date of the alleged offence still then the challan was filed as late as on 18. 2. 92 and no explanation whatsoever for the delay in filing the challan after the prescribed period of limitation, was mentioned in the challan nor any application for condonation of delay was filed by the prosecution and in such circumstances, the provisions of Section 470 (3) Cr. P. C. for exclusion of time cannot be pressed into service and the learned Magistrate committed patent illegality in taking cognizance against the petitioner after the expiry of period of limitation. In that case, PW 9 Smt. Hema, injured, has specifically deposed that accused Bhura Ram did not inflict any injury to her and that when she sustained the injuries on her neck and near her ear Bhura Ram was not present in the house. Thus, she did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. She also disowned her police statement Ex. P. ll and the dying declaration. During that Sessions trial, injury report of Smt. Hema dt. 25. 6. 88 was marked as Ex. P. 13. The learned Sessions Judge) vide his judgment dated 27. 10. 90 acquitted Bhura Ram of the offences u/ss. 307 and 323 IPC.

(3.)MR. Rathore, learned Public Prosecutor has clearly conceded that neither any explanation for the delay in filing challan has been mentioned in the challan itself nor any Application for condonation of delay was filed by the prosecution. He has, however, reiterated the reasonings given by the learned trial Magistrate.
I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr. P. C. proclaims that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under any of Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of the I. P. C when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court except on the complaint in writing. of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. Apparently, the provisions of Section 195 (1) (b) (i) are intended to obviate the possibility of two conflicting findings being recorded by two courts, one before which the document is produced in the course of the proceeding and the other trying the complaint regarding the fabrication of false and incorrect document. Admittedly, the alleged to be incorrect and false document prepared by the petitioner namely the M. L. R. of Smt. Hema dt. 25. 6,88 was filed alongwith the challan papers against the accused Bhura Ram and the said M. L. R. was marked as Ex. P. 13 by the learned Sessions Judge. Injured Smt. Hema was examined as PW 9 in that trial, wherein she has specifically deposed that her husband Bhura Ram did not inflict any injury to her and that when she received injuries on her neck and near her ear, he was not present there. She was declared hostile. Petitioner was not examined as a prosecution witness in that trial. The learned Sessions Judge did not give any finding that the M. L. R. of Smt. Hema Ex. P. 13 was either a false, incorrect or fabricated document or that it was wrongly mentioned therein that the injuries sustained by Smt. Hema were caused by blunt object. The learned Sessions Judge also did not direct for filing a criminal complaint against the petitioner nor any such complaint was filed before the court. Apart from it, the Medical Board examined Smt. Hema on 1. 8. 88, whereas she had sustained injuries on the night intervening 24th and 25. 06. 1988 i. e. after thirty seven days. The injuries of Smt. Hema were stitched on 25. 6. 88. It was on the basis of the entries in the Bed Head Ticket of Smt. Hema, who was admitted in the hospital on 25. 6. 88 and discharged on 8. 7. 88, that the Medical Board opined that as per description of injuries in local examination, the extent and structures involved in the injuries in operation notes and the scars of linear type found on the person of Smt. Hema, her injuries appeared to have been caused by a sharp weapon. Thus, it was also not a definite and conclusive opinion that the injuries sustained by Smt. Hema were caused by a sharp weapon. In such circumstances keeping in view the provisions of Sec. 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr. P. C. as also on the basis of the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer, the learned Magistrate committed patent illegality in taking cognizance of the offence under S. 193 IPC against the petitioner.

There is no dispute that the offence under S. 218 IPC is punishable with imprisonment or with fine or with both. Section 468 (1) of the Code provides that except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the 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. Sec. 468 (2) (c) proclaims that the period of limitation shall be three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence on the date of the offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, Smt. Hema was examined by the petitioner on 25. 6. 88 and the alleged to be incorrect document namely M. L. R. was prepared on 25. 6. 88. The Board vide its report opined that the injuries sustained by Smt. Hema appeared to have been caused by a sharp weapon. This report was received by the I. O. on ,4. 8. 88. Thus, at the most it can be said that the offence u/s. 218 IPC came to the knowledge of the I. O. on 4. 8. 88. Thereafter the period of limitation commenced against the petitioner and which came to an end on 3. 8. 91. The Superintendent of Police approached the State Govt. for according the sanction u/s. 197 Cr. P. C. for prosecution of the petitioner on 14. 11. 89 and the said sanction was granted by the State Govt. vide order dated 10. 5. 91 i. e. within the prescribed limitation of three years. The police however despite the issuance of prosecution sanction dated 10. 5. 91 did not care to file the challan against the petitioner within the prescribed period of limitation and submitted the same as late as on 18. 2. 92. In the challan, no explanation has been given as to why the challan could not be filed from 10. 5. 91 to 18. 2. 92 nor an application was given by the prosecution for condonation of such an inordinate delay. The object of prescribing limitation for taking cognizance of certain offence under Chapter XXXVI of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar on limitation of prosecutions is clearly to prevent filing cases after a long time as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions.