9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of taking cognizance of the offence based on an incomplete charge-sheet. 2. Validity of the order condoning the delay in filing the prosecution. Summary: 1. Legality of Taking Cognizance of the Offence Based on an Incomplete Charge-Sheet: The application u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenges the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara's order dated 21st November 1986, which took cognizance of the offence and issued process based on an incomplete charge-sheet. The Court emphasized that u/s 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a police report must be forwarded to the Magistrate only after the investigation is completed. The incomplete charge-sheet filed on 21st November 1986 did not meet this requirement, as the investigation was still ongoing. Consequently, the Magistrate's act of taking cognizance and issuing process was deemed mechanical and without proper application of mind. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mitra, which highlights that the formation of an opinion by the police and the submission of a charge-sheet or final report is the final step in the investigation. The Court concluded that the incomplete charge-sheet cannot be considered a "police report" as defined u/s 2(r) of the Code, thereby invalidating the Magistrate's cognizance of the offence. 2. Validity of the Order Condoning the Delay in Filing the Prosecution: The Court scrutinized the order condoning the delay, which was granted u/s 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code without notifying the accused or their counsel and without recording any reasons. The Court noted that u/s 468 of the Code, there is a legislative interdiction against taking cognizance of offences after the expiry of the limitation period, except as otherwise provided. The Court emphasized that the accused are entitled to a hearing on the question of extending the limitation period, as it affects their right to a fair trial. The trial Court's order was found to be mechanical, made without notice to the accused, and without recording any reasons, thereby rendering it illegal. The Court also highlighted that the Magistrate must consider the question of limitation before taking cognizance and cannot condone the delay post facto. The absence of recorded reasons for condoning the delay further invalidated the order. Conclusion: The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara, erred in taking cognizance of the offence based on an incomplete "police report" and in condoning the delay without proper judicial consideration. Consequently, the orders taking cognizance of the offence, issuing process, and condoning the delay were quashed and set aside. The judgment in Criminal Application No. 531 of 1987 also governed Criminal Applications Nos. 623, 624, 625, 626, 812, and 1868 of 1987, allowing all applications and making the Rule absolute accordingly.
|
