JUDGMENT
Ashok Parihar, J.
1. A Charge sheet For the offence under Section 323, 325 IPC was filed against some accused persons before the Trial Court. During the trial, the petitioner, working as Medical Jurist at the relevant time, was issued bailable warrants for appearing before the Court as a witness. The bailable warrants were issued for 07.01.1989 and then again for 18.02.1989. Inspite of serive of bailable warrants, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed. Subsequently, the accused were discharged for the offences alleged against them vide order dated 17.06.1991. It was only after final disposal of the criminal case by the Trial Court on 17.06.1991 the same day a complaint was registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 17-I IPC. by the Trial Court. However, the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court on 26.06.1991. The objections in regard to taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence alleged were rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 03.12.1999. Hence the present petition challenging the impugned order of cognizance with the prayer for quashing entire proceedings.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for not appearing before the Trial Court on the dates fixed have duly been explained by the petitioner. It was only because the petitioner had been on election duty, an information in regard to the same had already been sent to the Trial Court in time. The petitioner could not appear on the dates fixed as a witness in the Trial. A strong plea of limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. has also been taken by the petitioner.
3. After having considered submissions made by counsel for the parties I have carefully gone through the material on record.
4. As is evident from the record that the petitioner was only summoned as a witness in a trial for offence under Section 323, 325 IPC. The reasons for not appearing before the court have also been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The Trial Court ought to have taken notice of the fact that the petitioner could not appear before the court because of the election duties and not due to his personal reasons. It was further open for the Trial Court to either issue fresh bailable warrants if the presence of the petitioner was so necessary. Having not done so, the Trial Court proceeded with the trial and the same was concluded accordingly. In view of specific provisions as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Even the cognizance could not have been taken by the Trial Court against the petitioner for the offence under Section 174 IPC after more than one and half year. The Trial Court has erred in counting the limitation from the date of filing of the complainant and not the date when the offences was actually committed.
5. Having considered entire facts and circumstances and further the petitioner also having retired from Government service long back, I find no justification for continuing the proceedings pending against the petitioner since 1991 for the offence under Section 174 IPC.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner in the present case are ordered to be quashed. The Trial Court may pass further necessary orders accordingly. The record be sent back.