JASRAJ CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur dated 10 -3 -1983 whereby he has upheld the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur dated 9 -9 -1983. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under sections, 218 and 465, IPC against the accused petitioner Dr. Dalpat Singh.
(2.) IT is alleged that one Ram das was beaten by Jairam and Satya Narayan with Pharsi and Lathi. Injured Ramdas was admitted in PBM, Against order dated 10 -3 -1983 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Hospital, Bikaner in Ward -VIII. His treating Doctor was Dr. Saxena who was incharge of Ward -VIII. On 5 -6 -1979, on examination of the injured, Dr. P.P. Gandhi found that the injured has received the previous injuries by sharp weapon. It is alleged that on 10 -6 -1979, accused -petitioner Dr. Dalpat Singh, who at that time was working as Surgeon in PBM, Hospital, Bikaner issued a certificate that injured Ramdas has get no injury with may threaten his life and there is no evidence of any fracture on his person. This certificate was filed on the Court on 11 -6 -1979 and on that basis, the accused -person who injured Ramdas were bailed out, thereafter, on 12 -6 -1979, one Mishrilal filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur to get the injuries on injured Ramdas examined by a Medical Board. Ultimately, a Medical Board was constituted and it was found that the injuries received by Ramdas on his arm was previous in nature and caused by sharp weapon. Thus, it, came to the notice of the prosecution agency on 20 -9 -1979 that the certificate issued by Dr. Dalpat Singh is false It has initiated proceedings against him for issuing of a false certificate. After investigation, the Police filed the final Report on 27 -12 -1980 Against the Final Report, a protest petition was filed by Shri Champalal (complainant) on 5 -3 -1981 that cognizance should be taken against the accused -petitioner under Sections 217, 218 and 193, IPC. How ever, number of adjournments were sought by learned Counsel for the complainant either for the production of law books or for obtaining sanction of the competent authority for prosecution of Dr. Dalpat Singh. Ultimately, on 9 -9 -1983, the learned lower court came to the conclusion that no sanction is necessary because the issuance of a medical certificate does not fall within the purview of the duty of a Doctor and, therefore, it took cognizance against the accused -petitioner for the offence under Sections 219 and 465, IPC. Against this order, a revision was filed before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur, who has upheld the order of the learned Munsif& Judicial Magistrate Nagaur Hence this revision as aforesaid. I have heard Mr. T.S. Champawat, the learned Counsel for the accused -petitioner that the offence under 218, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three years or fine or both and the offence under Section 465, IPC is punishable with imprisonment for two years or fine or both. Thus, as per the provisions of Section 465, Cr.P.C. no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub -section (2) after the expiry of period of limitation. In the case in hand, cognizance has been taken against the accused petitioner for the offence under Sections 218 and 465, IPC and these offences fall within the category specified in Sub -section 2(c) of Section 468, Cr.P.C. i.e. in such cases, cognizance cannot be taken beyond a period of three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term proceeding one year but not exceeding three years from the date of the offence has been committed. Mr. Champawat has submitted that the offence have been committed on 10 -6 -1979 and if is held that the prosecution came to know, that the certificate issued by accused -petitioner is false, only on 20 -8 1979 then no cognizance of the offence under Sections 213 and 465 IPC could have been taken against the accused -petitioner after 19 -8 -1982 -Mr. Champawat has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Brown Beveri Ltd v. State of Gujarat : 1981CriLJ722 , wherein it has been held that it is of utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or by a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation It was further held that the object of Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from 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 long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consequence with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
(3.) MR . Champawat has also invited my attention to a decision of this Court in Panney Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1980 Cr. L.J 339. where in it has been observed as follows: There is legislative interdiction under Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation for presentation of the charge -sheet. If the court finds that the period of limitation has expired, the court shall set as to whether there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay or for extension of the period of limitation. It is not necessary that there should be separate application moved by the prosecution under Section 473. The delay may be explained in the chargesheet itself or the grounds for extension of the period of limitation may be stated in the charge -sheet itself. Extension of limitation may is to be sought by a separate application accompanied with an affidavit or papers in support of the same. The Court could not subsequent to the passing of the order taking cognizance condone the delay and extend the period of limitation. It may, how ever, be observed that under Section 473, apart from properly explaining the delay, the court is empowered to extend the period even in the interest of justice. Section 473 thus has to be liberally construe in the light of the words in which it is expressed. It was further observed as under: Before taking cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation, the accused is entitled to be given a notice and he shall be heard on the question of extension of the period of limitation under Section 473, Cr.P.C. Thus, as far this Court is concerned, this Court has held that delay cannot be condoned after taking cognizance. It can be condoned in suitable cases but those cases the accused is entitled to be given a notice and he shall be heard on the question of extension of the period of limitation under Section 473, Cr.P.C.;