O.P. Pradhan, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 1 -8-1983 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 1982.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly indicated as follows:- The revisionists were apprehended by the police on 27-7-1980 while they were carrying B illicit liquor in an Ambassador car at about 2.301 A.M. The police searched the Ambassador car and seized five bags in which illicit liquor bottles were being carried. The revisionists were also taken into custody by the police and a case under Section 60, of the U.P. Excise Act was registered at P. S. Dalmau, district Rae Bareli on the same day at 3.15 A. M Investigation followed and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of competent Magistrate on 13-7-1981. However, the learned Magistrate took cognisance of the case on 30-7-1981. Both the revisionists were summoned and on their appearance in Court, they raised an objection in writing that the cognisance had been taken by the learned Magistrate after the expiry of a period of one year from 27-7-1980 when the illicit liquor is said to have been seized from their possession. A. P. O. also tiled written submission in Court on 4-9-1982 saying that the charge-sheet had actually been submitted in Court on 13-7-1981 but it was presented before the learned Magistrate on 30-7-1981 and that there was no delay in the submission of the charge-sheet. However, the learned Magistrate came to find that the cognisance had been taken beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 70 (2) of the U.P. Excise Act and, therefore, no further proceedings could be carried by him. Not only this, he also acquitted both the revisionists of the offence under Section 60, of the said Act by means of his order dated 24-9-1982. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the State preferred a revision in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli. This gave rise to Criminal Revision No. 100 of 1982 which was heard and decided on 1-8-1983 by IVth Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order dated 24-9-1982 of the learned Magistrate and remanded the case to his Court for further necessary action in accordance with law. Dis-satisfied with this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhai and Ram Dayal preferred this revision.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as also the learned Government advocate and perused the record of the lower Courts. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27-7-1980 but the cognisance by the learned Magistrate was taken on 30-7-1981 and it was clearly beyond the expiry of one years period prescribed for institution of the prosecution under Section 70(2) of the U P. Excise Act. He further contended that in case the learned Magistrate wanted to take congnisance of the said offence, he ought to have issued notice to the revisionists who had acquired a valuable right to the effect that there would be no prosecution thereafter. The argument proceeded that no such notice was issued to the revisionists, nor they were heard before the cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Section 473 Cr. P. C., which lays down that cognisance may be taken after the expiry of the period of limitation if the Court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.;