- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2010, passed by Shri M.K. Srivastava, learned A.C.J.M., Khunti in G.R. Case No.485 of 2007 arising out of Khunti P.S. Case No.114 of 2007, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge was rejected. It appears that the petitioner, Aftab Khan was made accused in Khunti P.S.Case No. 114 of 2007 for the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act and the said case was instituted on 6.9.2007. When the og nizance of the offence could not be taken within the period of three years, the petitioner filed an application for discharge in the Court below on the ground that cognizance in the offence was now barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., as the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence was imprisonment for three years. However, said application was rejected by the court below stating that the charge sheet had been filed on 23.11.2010 and the cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused persons, including the petitioner, on 23.11.2010 itself, and accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the court below is absolutely illegal, inasmuch as, it is apparent from the impugned order as well as from the F.I.R. itself that the case was instituted on 6.9.2007, whereas the charge -sheet in the court below was filed on 23.11.2010 and cognizance was also taken on the same date, which is beyond the period of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that taking cognizance of the case after expiry of the period of three years is barred under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;