V.K.GUPTA, J. - (1.) IN this case, the occurrence relates to a period in the year 1989. It is alleged that the occurrence took place on 25th February, 1989, and the charge - sheet was filed on 10th August, 2000. The petitioners approached the Court below with a request that in terms of Section 468, Cr PC the taking of cognizance of the case was time barred because the offence attracted punishment of imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 years and, therefore, the limitation had expired. Learned Court below, however, rejected the petitioners request, and by applying and invoking Section 473, Cr PC held that since the delay had been explained, the Court could take cognizance of the case even after expiry of almost 10 years between the date of occurrence and the submission of charge - sheet.
(2.) UNDOUBTEDLY , Section 473, Cr PC does give jurisdiction to the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation but only on the condition that it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. I have carefully gone through the order under challenge in this petition and find that the prosecution did not at all make any attempt whatsoever in explaining as to why, how and under what circumstances had the delay occurred in presenting the charge -sheet after almost 11 years from the date of occurrence of the incident. Actually, the prosecution was totally silent about any such attempt in rendering any such explanation. Even in the order under challenge in this petition, learned trial Court has not made any reference to any such explanation having been rendered by the prosecution. What to talk of a sufficient and plausible explanation the prosecution did not render any explanation whatsoever. In a slip of shod manner, therefore, merely by reiterating the language of Section 473, Cr PC and without referring to either any explanation of delay or as to how the interests of justice would be served in taking cognizance of a case more than 10 years later, the Court below has rejected the prayer of the petitioners. The order is palpably wrong, illegal and totally without jurisdiction and patently in violation of Section 468, Cr PC. The same is accordingly set aside and the proceedings are accordingly quashed with all the consequences.
(3.) WHY was the charge -sheet not submitted immediately alter the occurrence? Why was it submitted more than 10 years later? These are the two questions which, however, remained to be answered. Even though I have set aside the order under challenge in this petition and I have quashed the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners, the above mentioned two questions do require answer because this case reflects the working of the prosecution in filing the final police report and in submitting the charge - sheet. I accordingly direct that a copy of this order shall be sent to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro District. Both of them shall jointly enquire into and find out the reasons as to why the charge - sheet was not submitted in time and after pinpointing the responsibility shall initiate action against those found guilty of dereliction of duty and of commission of culpable laches.;