CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 JH CK 0062

Bibhuti Nath Singh vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 23 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prashant Kumar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
A.B.A. No. 3337 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 338 words

Prashant Kumar, J.—Anticipatory bail application filed by Bibhuti Nath Singh, in connection with Complaint Case No. 204 of 2007 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, is moved by Sri B.K. Dubey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and opposed by Sri A.B. Mahto, learned Counsel for the State and Sri Ashish Verma, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

2.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that in the instant case, the cheque was dishonoured on 17.12.2006 and notice was given on 28.01.2007. Thereafter, the complaint filed on 11.04.2007 i.e. after the period of limitation. Hence, the complaint petition filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. Accordingly, it is prayed that Petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

3.

From perusal of record, I find that in the instant case, the court below took cognizance u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as well as Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is needless to say that the maximum punishment for the offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. is seven years. As per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the limitation for taking cognizance in an offence punishable for more than three years is unlimited.

4.

Thus, as per SubSection 3 of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure if two offences are tried together then the limitation will be counted on the basis of limitation provided for severe offence.

5.

Admittedly, in the instant case, cognizance also taken u/s 420 of I.P.C. Punishment provided u/s 420 I.P.C. is more than that of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

6.

Hence, in my view, the present case will be governed by Section 468(3) Code of Criminal Procedure Hence, in my opinion complaint petition is within time. Cheque issued by the Petitioner has been dishonoured and he has not paid the said amount, thus, prima facie, allegation against Petitioner appears to be correct.

7.

Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.