SURESHBHAI K DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1982-12-15
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 21,1982

Sureshbhai K Desai Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KATHAMUTHU VS. BALAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1985-10-10] [REFERRED TO]
R V KUNHIRAMAN AND VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT C B I COCHIN AND [LAWS(KER)-1998-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. B S VIJAYA MURTHY [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
KATHAMUTHU VS. BALAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1985-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SHANKAR VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(KER)-1998-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUREHIMAN VS. SETHU MADHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-2006-8-92] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

V.V.BEDARKAR - (1.)This petition is filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Revision Application No 32 of 1979. Condoning the delay in filing the chargesheet against the petitioner and setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Umbergaon in Criminal Case No. 656 of 1978 which was to the effect that as the chargesheet was presented beyond the period of limitation the chargesheet was ordered to be filed and the process issued against the accused was quashed.
(2.)So far as the facts are concerned they are not disputed and averments are made to that effect in this revision petition also. It is a fact that the petitioneraccused for the commission of offences punishable under sec. 66(1)(b) and sec. 85(1) and (2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1947 and sec. 110 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 The accused was arrested at about 9.30 p.m. on 17-12-1976 on suspicion of having consumed alcohol. Blood sample was taken on that very day by the Medical Officer who clinically examined him. The blood sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser on 18-12-1976 and as per the averment in the petition as well as in the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and Magistrate it is a fact that the Chemical Analyser sent his report to the concerned police Sub-Inspector on 7-9-1978. and the P.S.I submitted the chargesheet before the Court on 11-9-1978. Initially when the chargesheet was submitted the learned Magistrate called upon the P.S.I. by an order dated 18-9-1978 to show cause as regards the delay in submission of the chargesheet. Thereafter some how or the other there is an endorsement on the chargesheet which is typed to register the same and to issue summons returnable on 20-11-1978 This order was passed on 21-10-1978. After the accused appeared before the Court application Ex. 5 was filed by the accused before the learned Magistrate on 19-2-1979 contending that the cognizance taken against the petitioner accused by way of chargesheet was beyond the period of limitation as provided under sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and therefore the following two issues should be raised and decided:
(1) Whether the complaint Sled by the complainant was within the period of limitation ? And if H is not so

(2)Whether the Court is entitled to hear the complaint on merits ?

Surprisingly both these issues suggested do not touch the point in dispute. First information Report against the accused was already Sled on 17-101976 and sent to the Court It was received by the Court on 20-12-1976 as per the first paper in file No. 2 of the record. Therefore it is not that the complaint was filed late. On the application Ex. 5 the learned Magistrate heard the accused as well as the prosecution and considered that the alleged offence was committed by the accused on 17-12-1976 when he was arrested. The first information report is also of 17-12-1976. However the police report a filed in the Court on 10-9-1978. Then considering the legal provisions under Chapter 36 of the Code he considered that the chargesheet was submitted late and that the cognizance would not be taken by the Court after a period of one year. He therefore passed the Sling the charge sheet and quashing the Process. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

(3.)The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the application and also provisions of sec. 473 of the Code came to the conclusion that the delay should be condoned and provisions of sec. 473 of the Act should be attracted. He therefore set aside the order of the learned Magistrate by allowing the revision petition and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case from the stage of recording the plea of the accused and to follow the procedure provided for the summary trials and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. Being asgrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this revision petition.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.