P. N. Bakshi. J. - (1.) THE applicants have been convicted under Sections 324/34 and 323/34 IPC and sentenced to one year's RI and six months RI respectively by the Illrd Munsif Magistrate, Allahabad. THEir conviction was maintained in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad. THE sentence of imprisonment was set aside, and instead they were ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each for the offence under Section 324 IPC and Rs. 100/- each for the offence under Section 323 IPC. Hence this revision.
(2.) THE case for the prosecution is that there was enmity between the complainant Aditya Prasad and his cousin Raja Ram in respect to plot no. 330 in Consolidation Courts. THE accused had approached the complainant to give his statement is his favour, which was refused. On 23rd May 1974 at about 5 AM the complainant, after easing himself, was sitting on the Pulia situate to the east of his village. THE accused came there. Raja Ram was armed with a lathi. Rama Kant had a Kanta. Shiama Charan as armed with a lathi. Raja Ram asked the complainant for a compromise in the matter. He refused. On the exhortation of Raja Ram the accused persons started beating the complainant. It is said that the complainant caught hold of the Kanta and raised a hue and cry, which attracted witnesses Mata, Ambey and others to the scene of the occurrence. THEreafter the marpit ended. A report of the incident was lodged at 7 A. M. and the Kanta which was snatched from the accused, was deposited at the Police Station. On these allegations the applicants have been prosecuted and convicted as above. THE accused denied their participation in the occurrence in questions Both the courts below, on a consideration of the evidence on the record and the circumstances of the case, have held the guilt of the accused established beyond all reasonable doubt. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate courts. Counsel for the applicants has urged that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, since the offence in question was committed on 23rd May 1974, and the trial Magistrate had ordered the preparation of the copies of the documents on 7-9-1977, hence Section 468 CrPC barred taking of the cognizance by the trial court. Such abjection was not taken before any of the courts below. The case at first had proceeded in the court of the Illrd Additional Munsif Magistrate Allahabad. It was registered in his court on 21-12-75. Thereafter on 25-8-1976 the case was listed. The order sheet indicates that as per directions of the High Court the accused were directed to be summoned by the Munsif Magistrate for 15-3-1976. This order sheet is signed by the Munsif-Magistrate. Thereafter the case appears to have been transferred from the court of the IIlrd Addl. Munsif-Magistrate to the court of the IVth Judicial Magistrate for disposal. The accused presented themselves before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 7th September 1977 when an order was passed by the IVth Judicial Magistrate sending the file to the Copying Department for preparing copies. Under Section 473 CrPC a Court is entitled to take: cognizance of the offence even beyond the period of limitation. The fact that mo such objection on ground of limitation was taken by the accused and that the court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial which ultimately resulted in his conviction, clearly implies that the delay if any, was condoned by the Court. The litigant cannot be allowed to play fast and loose with the Court. It was open to him to have taken this objection before the trial court, if he desired to press it but the fact that no such objection was either taken there or before the Sessions Judge, clearly indicates that they were satisfied with the defence taken up by them and contested the prosecution story on the ground that they did not participate in the incident in question and not because of any alleged legal error, which is now sought to be pointed out by the learned counsel. Learned counsel has failed to satisfy me that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant. As per orders received from the High Court the Munsif- Magistrate had on 23-8-1976 directed! the accused to be summoned for 25-3-1977. This clearly indicates that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case and taken cognizance of the case and had the case not been transferred from his court by the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the trial would have proceeded in his court. For the reasons given above, I do not find any cause to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in this revision which is hereby dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court on 31-1-1979 staying realization of fine is hereby vacated. --- Revision dismissed.;