released on default bail if charge-sheet is not submitted within time. In the present case, the issue is not with regard to default bail,i.e, with section 167 Cr.PC. Further , section 468 and 469 Cr.PC provides that there will be a bar to taking cognizance of any offence after the lapse of the period of limitation. Section 469 specifically deals with the date of commencement of the period of limitation in relation to an offender. A reading of section 468, 469 Cr.PC shows that there is no limitation period/time bar for the Court to take cognizance of an offence in respect of a charge-sheet, which relates to punishment with imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 years. A perusal of the charge-sheet shows that all the respondents are charged under section 408/409 IPC, while some additional charges have been added against 4 of the present respondents, besides section 408/409 IPC. The punishment prescribed under section 408 IPC is for imprisonment for a term which may exceed 7 years. In the case of section 409 IPC, the punishment can be for imprisonment for life or for a term which may extend to 10 years. The punishment prescribed under section 408/409 IPC being beyond 3 years, the bar for taking cognizance, after the lapse of 3 years, provided in section 468 and 469, is not applicable to the case in hand. On this ground alone, this Court is of the view that the Sessions Court has not passed a correct order, by discharging the respondents, on the ground of delayed filing of the charge-sheet in 2017 without the prosecution giving any reasons, while the FIR had been registered in the year 2006.
