9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. challenges the order of taking cognizance under Section 436, IPC against the petitioners. The main contentions include the exclusive trial jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions, examination of witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P.C., and the timeliness of filing the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. Examination of Witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P.C.: The lower Court, after an enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C., found a prima facie case under Section 436, IPC based on the statements of witnesses produced by the complainant. The proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202 Cr. P.C. mandates the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine them on oath if the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Orissa High Court, following established principles, holds that the Magistrate is not required to examine all witnesses named in the complaint petition, but only those produced by the complainant and examined on oath. Judicial Opinion and Precedents: There is a conflict of judicial opinion regarding the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 202, Cr. P.C. Majority view, including that of the Orissa High Court, interprets the proviso as obligating the Magistrate to examine witnesses produced by the complainant. Precedents from other High Courts support the notion that failure to produce all witnesses does not vitiate the Magistrate's order of taking cognizance. Timeliness of Filing Application under Section 482, Cr. P.C.: The application challenging the impugned order was filed after about one year and six months, leading to the argument that the accused persons delayed the challenge and disrupted the case's progress. While there is no limitation for filing under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the Court emphasizes the importance of filing within a reasonable time to avoid hindering case advancement. A period of 90 days, akin to a revision petition, is deemed reasonable, and any delay beyond this requires justification. Conclusion: Considering the circumstances, the Court finds no merit in the Criminal Misc. case and dismisses the same, highlighting the importance of timely legal actions to maintain the smooth progression of cases.
|
