- (1.) BY this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C, the petitioner prays that the cognizance taken against him by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Phalodi, for the offences under sections 337 and 279, I. P. C. may be quashed. It is urged that the occurrence took place on February 6,1985, whereas the cognizance was taken on May 15, 1986. This was obviously beyond limitation as the offences under sections 337 and 279, I. P. C are punishable with a sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment for which the period of limitation is one year, as per the provisions of section 468, Cr. P. C.
(2.) LEARNED counsel further submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate was not competent to condone the delay or extend the period of limitation subsequent to the taking of cognizance and, therefore, the order dated August 2, 1988, passed by the learned Magistrate, extending the time of limitation, was without jurisdiction and illegal. LEARNED counsel has, in this connection, relied on the judgment of this Court in Panney Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan (1) and Dr. Dalpat Singh Bhandari Versus the State of Rajasthan (2 ). In Panney Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan (1), this Court has held that the Court could not condone the delay or extend the period of limitation sub-sequent to the taking of cognizance. It was held and observed:- "the question then arises, as to whether the delay could be subsequently condoned. In my opinion, in view of what I have discussed above, the Court could not, subsequent to the passing of the order taking cognizance, condone the delay and extend the period of limitation. As 1 have held that before taking cognizance of the offence, the Court is required to satisfy itself of the grounds for extension of time which was not done in the present case, so the order dated 6-11-1978 as well, would not validate the initial order of taking cognizance of the offences. " This judgment was followed in Dr. Dalpat Singh Bhandari vs. The State of Raj. (2) and the order taking cognizance of the offence in that case against the petitioner beyond limitation was set-aside, despite the fact that the delay in taking cognizance was condoned subsequently. Following the aforesaid decisions, I hold that the cognizance taken in the present case, also, deserves to be set-aside and it was done beyond limitation. In the result, the petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. is allowed. The order of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Phalodi, dated August 2, 1988 is set-aside and the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the offence under sections 337 and 279, I. P. C. on May 15, 1986 is quashed. .;