- (1.)Leave granted. One of the contentions before the High Court was that the cognizance has been taken beyond the period provided under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court relied upon the decisions of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, 2007 7 SCC 394 and Bharat Damodar Kale and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2003 8 SCC 559 and has held that cognizance has been taken within time.
(2.)Since a reference had been made to the 5-Judge Bench in Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors., 2014 2 SCC 62, on the question whether earlier 3-Judge Bench decision in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran and Anr, 1990 Supp1 SCC 121 lays down the correct law or the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Damodar Kale, BHARAT DAMODAR KALE V/S STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 2003 8 SCC 559 and JAPANI SAHOO V/S CHANDRA SEKHAR MOHANTY, 2007 7 SCC 394 was correct law, in these matters notice was issued on 26.07.2013 and the matters were referred to the Constitution Bench along with Sarah Mathew 3.
(3.)The reference in Sarah Mathew : (2014) 2 SCC 62 as well as these matters has been answered by the 5-Judge Bench on 26.11.2013. In para 40 of its opinion, 5-Judge Bench did not accept the view of the 3-Judge Bench in KRISHNA PILLAI V/S T A RAJENDRAN, 1990 Supp1 SCC 121. It said:
40. ... For all these, we are unable to endorse the view taken in Krishna Pillai.