ORDER
1. This criminal revision case has been preferred against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur dt.17.10.96 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1596 of 1996 in C.C.No.26 of 1996.
2. The circumstances which have given rise to the present criminal revision case are briefly as follows:- The Sub-Inspector of Police, Alangulam initiated criminal proceedings against the two petitioners under sections 286, 337 and 304A, I.P.C. and section 3 read with section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act alleging that the occurrence took place on 29.1.88. It appears, originally the provisions of the Arms Act have not been included and it remained a summons case. As per the provisions of section 468, Cr.P.C. investigation has to be completed within two years and charge sheet should be filed within two years in a summons case. After the provisions of the Arms Act have been included, the case became a warrant case and the charge-sheet has to be filed within a period of three years. As per the case of the prosecution the occurrence took place on 29.1.88 and therefore the charge-sheet should have been filed by 29.1.91. However, the charge-sheet was filed only on 30.3.92 after a delay of one year and two moths. In the lower court, an application was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1596 of 1996 to excuse the delay in filling the charge-sheet beyond a period of three years. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur after an enquiry, by his order dt. 17.10.96 excused the delay in filing the charge- sheet, took the case on file as C.C.No.26 of 1996. The correctness of the said order is being challenged in this revision petition.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner represented, in so far as an offence punishable with three years imprisonment, the charge-sheet should be filed within a period of three years and in respect of an offence punishable with two years, charge-sheet should be filed within a period of two years. In the present case on hand after the provisions of the Arms Act have been included, the case became a warrant case and therefore punishable with imprisonment for three years and the charge-sheet ought to be filed by 29.1.91 as the occurrence took place on 29.1.88. It was pointed out the learned Magistrate fell into an error by observing that the matter was pending in this High Court for some time and therefore the prosecution is justified in filing the charge-sheet after a period of three years, i.e., after the proceedings, in the High Court was over. It is also observed by him that in the interest of justice, if any case has to be taken on file beyond the period of limitation, the court can do it after examining the same. It is no doubt true that in a particular case where the offence was so grave affecting the society at large, the court can take it on file beyond the period of limitation after giving cogent and convincing reasons. The learned Magistrate has not given any satisfactory reason except observing the above principle of law. It is also brought to my notice that no petition to excuse the delay had been filed. If such a petition had
been filed, the Magistrate would have referred the same in his order dt. 17.10.96
4. I have carefully read the order of the learned Magistrate and I am unable to find any mention about the filing of the petition to excuse the delay in filing the charge-sheet. It is important to notice even though the matter was pending in the High Court on some other ground, the charge sheet, had been filed by the prosecution on 30.3.92 itself, and therefore even at that time, the learned Magistrate ought to have considered whether the case can be taken on file and process shall be issued after issuing notice to the accused. He had not followed the procedure but waited for the termination of the proceedings in the High Court as requested by the prosecution which is erroneous. On a perusal of the relevant records, this Court, is of the view that the reasoning of the learned Magistrate for taking the case on file after a delay of one year and two months, is not correct as he has not given convincing reasons.
5. In the result, the revision is allowed and the order of the learned Magistrate is set aside.