9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Ex parte orders extending the period for filing a proceeding without notice to the opposite party. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice in criminal prosecutions. 3. Inherent powers of criminal courts to condone delay and extend time. 4. The necessity of issuing notice to the accused before condoning delay. 5. Determination of limitation period before taking cognizance of an offence. Detailed Analysis Ex Parte Orders Extending the Period for Filing a Proceeding Without Notice to the Opposite Party The court referenced the decision in *Krishnasami v. Ramaswami, AIR 1917 PC 179*, where it was observed that ex parte orders extending the period for filing a proceeding without notice to the opposite party were open to grave objection. This practice was criticized for leading to unnecessary expenditure and waste of time, creating embarrassment when deciding on the question of delay. The Supreme Court also approved this view in *Dinabandhu Saha v. Jadumoni Mangaraj, AIR 1954 SC 411*. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in Criminal Prosecutions The judgment emphasized that the fundamental principles of natural justice require that no proceeding affecting a person's life, liberty, or property should be held without giving them an opportunity to participate. This principle, applicable in civil jurisdiction, must apply even more stringently in criminal prosecutions where personal liberty is at stake. The court cited *Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425* and *A.K. Kraipak, AIR 1970 SC 150* to support this view. Inherent Powers of Criminal Courts to Condone Delay and Extend Time The court discussed the inherent powers of criminal courts, noting that these powers are necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process. The court referenced several decisions, including *Budhe Lal v. Chattu Gope, AIR 1918 Cal 850* and *Akhil Bandhu Ray v. Emperor, AIR 1938 Cal 258*, to assert that all courts possess inherent powers. The court also addressed the misconception arising from *Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432*, which suggested that subordinate criminal courts lack inherent powers, and clarified that inherent powers exist independently of statutory provisions. Necessity of Issuing Notice to the Accused Before Condoning Delay The court ruled that it is essential to issue notice to the accused before condoning delay and extending time, in line with the principles of natural justice. The Division Bench in *Asiatic Oxygen v. Registrar of Companies [1978] 2 Cal HCN 412* supported this view, emphasizing that the interests of justice require giving the proposed accused a reasonable opportunity to contest the condonation of delay. The court quashed the ex parte order of extension/condonation passed by the Magistrate without notice to the petitioners and directed the Magistrate to decide the question of extension/condonation with notice to the petitioners. Determination of Limitation Period Before Taking Cognizance of an Offence The judgment highlighted that the question of limitation should be determined before taking cognizance of an offence. The court referred to *State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054*, which allows the accused to raise the plea of limitation at any stage of the proceeding. The court noted the conflicting opinions among various High Courts on whether the limitation should be determined before or after taking cognizance. The court favored determining the question of limitation before taking cognizance, as it aligns with the spirit and letter of the law. In conclusion, the court quashed the ex parte order passed by the Magistrate and directed that the question of extension of time and condonation of delay be decided after issuing notice to and hearing the petitioners. The judgment reinforced the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice and recognized the inherent powers of criminal courts to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process.
|
