IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3602 of 2009()
1. GEORGE KUTTY, S/O.THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SEENAMOL, PUNNALAKKATTIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.3602 of 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
ORDER
The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.348
of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg, challenges the
order dated 10.6.2009 in C.M.P.No.1989 of 2008 as per which he
sought his discharge on the ground that cognizance of the
offence was taken beyond the period of limitation.
2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as
follows:-
The revision petitioner who was the neighbour of
the de-facto complainant Seena Thomas got
acquainted with her and offered to marry her. On the
promise to marry her he had sexual intercourse with
her on several occasions and when the lady became
pregnant the revision petitioner made himself scarce
by escaping to his native place at Kanjirappally in
Kottayam district. The revision petitioner has thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 417
IPC.
Crl.R.P. No. 3602 of 2009
2
3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 468
Cr.P.C. After the appearance of the revision petitioner/accused,
he was supplied with the copy of the prosecution records and a
charge was framed against him . He pleaded not guilty to the
charge framed against him by the trial court for the
aforementioned offence and the case was posted for
prosecution evidence. It was at that stage that the petitioner
filed C.M.P.No.1989/80 in C.C.No.348/2006 under Section 239
r/w 245(2) Cr.P.C to discharge him on the ground that the
cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of
limitation.
4. The court below after narrating the facts of the case
took notice of the fact that eventhough the cognizance of the
offence was taken beyond the period of limitation by the
predecessor in the office of the Magistrate, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case discussed earlier in the order,
held that this was a fit case where the delay has to be condoned
in the interest of justice, in view of the latter part of Section 473
Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P. No. 3602 of 2009
3
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong
reliance on decision State of Himachal Pradesh v.Tara Dutt
and another ( AIR 2000 SC 297) to contend for the position that
the court below was not right in condoning the delay in the
interests of justice without giving reasons to condone the delay.
6. I cannot agree. The court below has given the reasons
in the previous paragraphs where the facts of the case have been
narrated. That, according to me, will constitute the reasons to
condone the delay in the interests of justice. The court had the
power to invoke the latter part of Section 473 Cr.P.C and
condone the delay in the interests of justice. It was a proper
exercise of discretion. If the delay was not condoned justice
would have been the first casualty.
I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order
passed by the court below. This Revision is accordingly
dismissed.
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
sj