IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17*" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE JAWAI) RAH;«z»1.' "
CRIMINAL REVXSION PETITION NO. 13.13»,fla'oo7-~.:: "
BETWEEN:
State by S.H.O.,
Belthangady Police. V " V
(By Sri. Raja Subrahmanya BhatfV_.HuCAL'3P)"
AND: 'l V l
1. RT. John V V
Aged about_72;:y'ears}' » _ _ ¢ 1
S/ o Late..Tho:naSj--i;Koppa HoLise.,._H_
Nellyadi Village, .
Puttur7__Talu'k.V " V.
2. George V . A g
Aged about years,
5/ 0. fjcheriyan, " ~ ._
* _ RevS_iclir;g.A at.Nedcly'yad'ka.
V' ir?.¢hal.a1npacl3r_ 'Village,
V' P11ttur'TalLI,.k.._ V
Aged about. 32 years,
S/o Justin,
Thadathil House,
"~ Korialu Village,
' -.Pu»tt1.1r Taluk.
.,_Seanthosh
Aged about 35 years,
S / 0 Abraham,
Parkala Rekya Village,
Belthangadi Taluk.
ll,»
Q
5. Ponnachan
Aged about 40 years,
S/o Kunju, Urajalu House,
Inchalampady Village,
Puttur Taluk. ....RESP{)N'Dl_E.'NT..S
(By Sri. S. Vishwajith Shetty, Adv. for R1 to R5}: V
This Criminal Revision Petitonflis filediungder' -seetieiiV;3_9'f;?
Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petit.ione_r praying. 'i2hat."tthi's,
Hon'ble Court may be pleasedlltoset aside the.._§'ui:1g1nerit and-V
order dated 26.2.2007 passed in c"ri-291/zoos on; the file of
the S.J, D.K. Mangalore. V it 2
This Criminal Revision'l'P_eti.t_ion on for admission
this day, the CO1;ri';:n1'a_de i;Ahe_yfo_liowing';: '
The*_.'&3tatel against the order in Crl.R.P.No. .
291/2006 Ville of: 'Session Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
dated h2'6...2...2007 allowing the revision and setting
V"-aside"the--vordertepassed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime
l\§o§*lp(.)'}o./2t)U2."p:---- tiivrecting case to be registered as C.C
'No.55t§,'2(lQ5."ior an offence punishable under Sections 143,
"'V.1i.47~,.e,1g,s;"' 504 at 324 r/W Section 149 of {PC against the
. fres'pon'dents.
2. Petition is listed for admission after prior notice to the
respondents and noticing that the issue is in a narrow campus,
by consent of both sides, it is taken up for final disposal.
(W
..3..
3. Contextual facts are: a report was received at the
jurisdictional police station on 17.05.2002 alleging that the
respondents had indulged in criminal activity with a inairiioldject
of assaulting one Anthony. The responcients::”shariiig”
common object. armed themselves “fllll1″‘V~’€3.DCiHS and tcolniniiitted 0
rioting in the first instance and then a_ss’aulted_’t.heir
indiscriminately causing injuries_Vo’f.various 1iature.’*v._””Fhe “report 0
was registered as FIR in Crime 17.2002 “and inrirestigation
commenced. During inve’stiga.tionfigthe°’re’spondents came to be
arrested and were produced ‘before”tlj1e_J uiisfldlictional Magistrate,
who remanded4..therr{r0to custody and fthen they were released.
4. The’ responiclcents’questioned’ initiation of proceedings
against them as also the summons issued in
Cr1.R.P.No.2.’l?.il./002005-__ the learned Sessions Judge,
i.l)aksy_l1’il3V1a: iiannadai’ «Thepetition came to be disposed of with an
V”.observatioi’i’tliatl question regarding limitation could be raised
the y’acci1’§e¢i”_j –.at:=.Vlappropriate stage. Thereafter no further
‘proceedings vvere taken up by the Investigating Officer and the
fiinaliirreport was filed only on 01.06.2005. The office of the
ggiulifisdictional J.M.F.C noticed that, the final report was filed
‘«l..:lbe’latedly and as the maximum punishment prescribed for the
0 0′ “offence levelled against petitioner is punishment for a period of
imprisonment of three years. it was beyond time. Accepting the
yes
_4_
objections, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the
Investigating Officer to explain the delay in filing of the final
report. ln response to which, one Sub~lr1spector of
Vidyadhar Baikerikar filed affidavit on 29.06.2005
the delay in filing the belated charge” sheet’; ‘4salrneg.ivasl’
opposed by the respondents. :l’ea’rned’–
Magistrate rejected their objections and iiegilsteredithej case.” 0
and cognizance have been taken…aVgai’ns.ttt the petitioner for the
offences indicated above. wider the accused
preferred cr1.R.12.1$to.g91/zieaefivhietiqttileslfileeli allowed by the
learned Sessions dated 26.2.2007
and the has been set aside
giving initiated against the
respondentsq . 0 A 0 it
“file State feels aggrieved by the said order has assailed
0′ the sanae more than one ground.
l”‘Cllerlt_ai.n””facts which are not in dispute; the alleged
_incident occurred on 16.5.2002. On the basis of the report of
.4 Anthony, FIR came to be registered on the same day. This
‘therefore, the material date from which the period of limitation
‘haslto be reckoned as prescribed by Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
” “The investigation continued and final report has been filed only
on 01.06.2005. The respondents are accused of having
gully
-5-
committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148,
504», 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and the punishment
prescribed for these offences is as follows:
{i} Section 147 maximum period of auo-‘..’:;ieorsp”a
(ii) Section 148 maximum pé’:rioct_oj’ ;s:hr_¢é’.Aye_ar=s~wii.z5;S f
or withoutfine. y if _ 1 _ V 4′ 0
(iii) Section 324 maximurrt”‘period”qf three’ yepidrstuuiith
fine or both. if p_ 0 :
(to) Section 149 prescribed for Sections
147 and 148 of tmc. ‘ ”
7. P1’0V1’Si(‘.:’~i1″Q.1::.S6ChlOI}§ prescribes bar
for taking the period of limitation
prescribed.””i’1’heiiiperit%id’ of’1i”mitati_on” prescribed is three years if
the offence: is imprisonment for a term
exceeding oneayear b._ut3,not.exceeding three years. Therefore.
of the SA1ib…Seetion (1) of Section 468 applies to the
0′-fac1;.S”in is_s’ue’.’~_ ‘Tl1_e period of iirnitation has to be reckoned as
prescribfedv ‘1inde.i’VV’Section 469 of Cr.P.C. Clause [a] of Sub-
‘Section “{1} of 4’ Section 469 envisages, the limitation shall be
“‘§i’3.lf:-i/ll£1§Z€(IlV”fI’0II1 the date of offence. Therefore, the final report
toflfbe filed by 16.05.2008, whereas, the charge sheet has
‘fibeen filed on 1.6.2005. Undoubtedly it was beyond the period of
if if three years prescribed. However, the provisions of Section 473
permits seeking of condonation of delay in filing of the final
git
-5-
reports and it enables the Court, notwithstanding anything
contained in the provisions of Section 468. Court may take
cognizance of the offence after expiry of the period of if
it is satisfied on facts and in the circumstances o–f:the.ca’se’ithat
the delay has been properly explained; if it is necess.aiy.VVto’.’_d.o so if ‘
in the interest of justice. The benfiefitdof
available to the prosecution, but._[when iirial replortwasttfiied on V
1.6.2005, no application . was : yfile:d.._e;;p1ainiI’1g:the; delay or
requesting the Magistratelltofi«beyond the period
of limitation prescri’oe.d. ” h if t id
8. .’thelearned Jurisdictional
Magistrate has» not prescribed by any
of this lnvestigating Officer to explain
the delay goiight. Consequently it is noticed
that, when. such explanation was called for by the Magistrate,
the Officer who investigated the case namely Sub-
Sri. Bhopal K, did not file any explanatory
l statei–nent_v’r1or:’.v’ did he make any such request. On the other
theipresent SHO in the office of the complainant police
l gistationlby name Sri. Vidyadhar Baikerikar, filed an affidavit on
stating that, a jeep was used in commission of the
~ .:crime and to trace the said jeep time was consumed. Firstly,
that explanation is not of the investigating Officer, secondly, the
cause so shown finds no support irom any of the material,
gab
..7,.
because, the investigation in the case had reached finality within
a period of three months from the date of registration of E’-IR and
no further investigation was either undertaken or in tlie:’pr”ocess.
9. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate!
magnanimity in accepting the said cause as’..suffi_cientVto:?ta3a:ie
cognizance after the expiry of periodpof
rightly challenged by the accuse(3\\:~p__ ‘dudge’ f
in the impugned order has t’o_’certai1’1–..favcts not in
dispute and has rightly if conclusion that
indefeasible charge sheet
was not filed period of limitation
and such”‘accused prosecution had to
fail. The l’earn_ed has rightly concluded that, in
the absence ofany gexplanfatjon or request from the Investigating
.«vv.Qifice__1§:;;Q giegrplainu”the____delay in filing in the final report, the
f”«Magistrate__fcou_ld’ not have acted on the report of some other
0ff1cer–V7Who ‘f–§Kgfas’oI=nfot a party to the investigation. The learned
‘Sessions.’ conclusion that the order of the learned
“dais/I,agi’strate’f was unsustainable in law cannot be faulted. The
..ffcoZn-clfusfion is supported by his sufficient reasons tenable in law
the State has despite fault of its officers pursued further
action in this revision.
(lib
-3-
This revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merit
affirming the impugned order.
=t=Ap/_