S.S.DAWAN, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, the Code) Muni Lal has sought quashing of the proceedings in case First Information Report No. 343 dated 23.9.1978, under Sections 411/379. Indian Penal Code.
(2.) WITHOUT going into the details of the matter in substance, the allegations against the petitioner amount to this: That in the year 1974, the shop of Rukhmani Devi was on rent with Jagdish Parshad complainant and this shop was given in the name of a Dharamsala by its owner. In order to annex the land under the shop in question in the Dharamsala, Khushi Ram and Ram Partap got that shop demolished and removed the articles lying there and kept the same with one Ganga Ram in his godown on rent. It is alleged that those articles were sold by Ganga Ram to Muni Lal petitioner in the year 1978. On 21.9.1978, Assistant Sub-Inspector Upkar Singh recovered some articles from the possession of the petitioner. On 23.9.1978 Jagdish Parshad appeared before the police and identified the same to be owned by him and consequently a case was registered against the petitioner on the same day under Section 411/379, Indian Penal Code, at the instance of the complainant. After the completion of the investigation the challan was instituted in the Court on 3.3.1979. The plea taken by the petitioner in the trial Court was that since the theft had taken place on 1.1.1974, the period of limitation being 3 years, came to an end on 1.1.1977, whereas the challan was presented in the Court on 3.3.1979 and as such, the challan being time-barred, no cognizance thereof could be taken. That plea prevailed with the trial Court and the challan was held to be time-barred and the accused were accordingly discharged. The revision filed by the complainant against the said order of the trial Court was accepted by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on June 9, 1980, holding that the challan instituted on 3.3.1979 under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, was within limitation. Hence this petition. The ground on which the proceedings are required to be quashed is simple and precise, the same being that the prosecution of the petitioner was barred by the provisions of Section 468 of the Code. The material portion of Section 468 reads thus : "468(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this 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. (2) The period of limitation shall be :- (a) * * * * * (b) * * * * * (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3.) THE other section which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition is Section 469 which reads thus : "469. Commencement of the period of limitation - (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender shall commence :- (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) 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; or " ;