9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the trial Court acted illegally in taking cognizance of the alleged offence after the lapse of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. What course should be adopted by a Magistrate in taking cognizance of a case falling under the purview of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Whether the trial Court's procedure in rectifying the mistake of taking cognizance without satisfying itself about the delay was contrary to the provisions of law. 4. Lay down the procedure to be followed by trial Courts in cases where Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is attracted. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitions were filed by accused persons in separate cases pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durg, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against them under Sections 24 and 24A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The accused argued that the trial Court acted illegally by taking cognizance after the limitation period had lapsed. The State contended that as a hearing date was fixed, no interference was necessary. However, the Court held that Section 468 of the Code creates a bar for taking cognizance after the limitation period and that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction in this matter. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 468 and the power of the Court under Section 473 to extend the limitation period in the interests of justice. 2. The Court clarified that the trial Court should first determine if Section 468 is attracted before registering a case and should allow the complainant to satisfy it on the point of limitation for condonation of delay. Condonation of delay should be done judiciously under Section 473, similar to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, based on sufficient cause and the interests of justice. The Court highlighted that the accused persons must be heard before condoning the delay, as it affects their valuable rights. The provisions of Section 473 should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice, but not excessively, especially when the prosecution involves the Government or police. 3. The Court criticized the trial Court's procedure of rectifying the mistake of taking cognizance without addressing the delay properly. It emphasized that the trial Court should have followed the provisions of law and satisfied itself before proceeding with the case. The Court highlighted that the trial Court's approach was contrary to legal requirements and stressed the importance of adhering to procedural norms and principles. 4. The Court laid down a detailed procedure for trial Courts to follow in cases falling under Section 468 of the Code. It emphasized the need for a careful assessment of the limitation period, judicious condonation of delay, and ensuring that accused persons are heard before any decision affecting their rights is made. The Court underscored the importance of balancing the interests of justice with procedural fairness in such cases to uphold the rule of law.
|
