APHC010127322020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 279/2020 Between: 1. MACHIKALAPUDI VENKATANATH @ BABLU, S/ O SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PANCHAYAT OFFICE ROAD, YENAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. VELAGAPUDI BABU RAO, S/ O. LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RIO. YENAMALAKUDURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE REP, Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Penamaluru Police Station, Vijayawada City, Through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Cr.P.C.'), challenging the docket order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026 Vijayawada, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the I.P.C.') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for brevity, 'the PDPP Act'). 2. Sri B. Subramanya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are punishable with imprisonment up to three years. The alleged incident took place on 14.01.2015, whereas the charge sheet was filed in the year 2019, and cognizance was taken on 18.12.2019. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 468(2)(C) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the said offences, as the same is barred by limitation. With regard to the offence punishable under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ the learned counsel submits that the essential ingredients of the said provision are not attracted to the facts of the present case. Hence, according to him, the learned Trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act’. 3. Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while fairly conceding the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners that the cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is hit by the bar of limitation under Section 468(2)(c) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ submits that the offence punishable under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, and 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026 therefore the bar of limitation under Section 468 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ would not apply to the said offence. He further submits that whether the ingredients of Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ are attracted to the facts of the present case is a matter to be considered during trial and cannot be adjudicated at the stage of examining the legality of the order taking cognizance. He, therefore, prayed that appropriate orders be passed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned Trial Court, by order dated 18.12.2019, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ against the Petitioners and the other accused. The alleged occurrence took place on 14.01.2015, whereas cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ was taken only on 18.12.2019, in contravention of the bar contained under Section 468(2)(c) of ‘the Cr.P.C’. In this regard, for better appreciation of the case, Section 468 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is extracted hereunder: 1. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. 2. The period of limitation shall be— a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 3. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026 6. A plain reading of Section 468 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ makes it clear that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein. In the present case, the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ are punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(C) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is clearly attracted. Since cognizance was taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is liable to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. 7. Insofar as the contention that the provisions of Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ are not attracted to the facts of the present case is concerned, this Court is not inclined to examine the same at this stage. The present revision is directed only against the order taking cognizance. The offence under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to five years, and therefore the bar of limitation under Section 468 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is not attracted. Whether the ingredients of Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ are made out is a matter to be considered on the basis of the material collected during investigation, which cannot be adjudicated in the present revision while examining the legality of the order taking cognizance. 8. However, liberty is reserved to the Petitioners to file an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court seeking discharge from the offence 5 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026 punishable under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ if the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed by setting aside the order dated 18.12.2019 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 109 of ‘the I.P.C’. The order taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 3 of ‘the PDPP Act.,’ shall remain undisturbed. The Petitioners are at liberty to file an appropriate discharge application before the learned Trial Court, which shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 20.07.2026 KMS 6 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026 236 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 279 of 2020 Date: 20.07.2026 KMS 7 Dr.YLR, J Crl.R.C.No.279 of 2020 Dated 20.07.2026