VALSAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / accused faces indictment under S.12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act. To cut a long story short, the gist of the allegations against him is that he applied for a fresh passport in the name of his uncle K.K. Gopalan affixing his photograph. This was allegedly done by him with dishonest and questionable intentions. The First Information Report was registered on 13.1.1998. The charge sheet was filed on 18.1.2002. The offence under S.12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act carries the maximum punishment of imprisonment of two years and fine.

(2.) After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 18.1.2002 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The accused, after entering appearance, claimed that the proceedings against him may be discontinued. He filed Crl.M.P. No. 15840/03 requesting the Court to consider his plea to discontinue proceedings on the ground that cognizance was taken against him ignoring, overlooking and in violation of S.468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. Notice was given. The rival contestants were heard. It is thereafter that the impugned order was passed. The learned Magistrate took the view that at the time of taking cognizance, his predecessor had impliedly condoned the delay under S.473 of the Cr.P.C., though there is nothing to show actual application of mind to the question under S.473 of the Cr.P.C. whether the delay has been properly explained or that taking cognizance notwithstanding the bar under S.468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. was necessary in the interests of justice.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor have advanced their arguments before me. Various precedents have been cited at the Bar. I am of the opinion that the law is too well settled to require any specific reference to precedents.