1966 (12) TMI 80 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Period of limitation for filing a revision application under Article 131 of the Limitation Act.
2. Requirement to approach the Sessions Judge before filing a revision application in the High Court.
3. Calculation of the limitation period from the date of the Magistrate's order or the Sessions Judge's order.
4. High Court's power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
5. High Court's discretion to interfere with the Magistrate's order under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Period of Limitation for Filing a Revision Application under Article 131 of the Limitation Act:
The judgment addresses the period for filing a revision application under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, which is 90 days from the date of the decree or sentence sought to be revised. The court held that this period should be counted from the date of the Magistrate's order, not from the date of the Sessions Judge's order refusing to make a reference to the High Court. The court emphasized that the statutory period of limitation must be adhered to, and the practice of filing applications before the Sessions Judge does not extend this period.

2. Requirement to Approach the Sessions Judge Before Filing a Revision Application in the High Court:
The court discussed the long-standing practice of requiring parties to approach the Sessions Judge before filing a revision application in the High Court. However, it was held that this practice should not be mandatory, especially in light of the statutory period of limitation prescribed by the new Limitation Act. The court noted that while this practice was based on convenience and sound principles, it should not prevent a party from coming directly to the High Court if the Sessions Judge's court is unable to dispose of the application quickly.

3. Calculation of the Limitation Period from the Date of the Magistrate's Order or the Sessions Judge's Order:
The court clarified that the period of 90 days prescribed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act should be counted from the date of the Magistrate's order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that the order sought to be revised is the Magistrate's order, not the Sessions Judge's order refusing to make a reference. The court rejected the argument that the limitation period should be extended by the time taken in prosecuting the application before the Sessions Judge.

4. High Court's Power to Condon Delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:
The court recognized that the High Court has the power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in exceptional circumstances. It was held that if a party was misled by the practice of the court or if the delay was caused due to the pendency of the application before the Sessions Judge, the delay should be condoned. The court emphasized that this power should be exercised liberally to ensure that justice is served.

5. High Court's Discretion to Interfere with the Magistrate's Order under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The court reiterated that the High Court has wide discretionary powers under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to interfere with the Magistrate's order if it finds that an illegal or improper order has resulted in injustice. This power can be exercised suo motu or on an application by a party, even if the statutory period of limitation has expired. The court emphasized that the primary objective is to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the recognized rules of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the period of limitation for filing a revision application should be counted from the date of the Magistrate's order, and the time taken in prosecuting the application before the Sessions Judge cannot be excluded. However, the High Court has the discretion to condone the delay in exceptional circumstances and can exercise its wide powers under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code to ensure justice. The applications in the present cases were allowed with modifications to the Magistrate's orders, and the delays were condoned based on the specific circumstances of each case.