Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
32ND COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI.
C.C. NO. 647/MISC/2019
CNR No.MHMM180083812019
ORDER BELOW EXH1
1. The chargesheet has been filed after delay of around
more than four years. Thus, the investigating officer sought to
condone delay and to accept the chargesheet on the ground that due
to technical difficulties and transfer of investigating officer to other
police station, the delay has been caused.
2. Perused the application and say of the accused Exh2.
Despite direction, the investigating officer failed to file affidavit on
oath. Heard both sides.
3. Accused strongly opposed to condone delay contending
that the chargesheet has been filed after seven years of completion
of investigation. The offence allegedly committed by the accused
under section 279, 338 of IPC provides punishment upto two years.
Thus, chargesheet should have been filed in the period of three
years. The delay is not caused at the instance of accused.
4. The Ld. Advocate for accused during arguments pointed
out the provisions of section 468 and 473 of Cr.P.C. and submitted
that the investigating officer cannot be readily entitled for the benefit
under section 473 of the Cr.P.C., unless proper and justifiable
explanation given. He pointed out that the delay is deliberate and
intentional. To substantiate his claim, he also pointed out that the
statement of last witness has been recorded on 05.04.2012 and
-- 1 of 3 --
2
almost the investigation was concluded in the month of April, 2012.
There is no attempt to explain when the investigating officer was
transferred and what technical difficulties were in existence. Thus, he
prayed to reject the chargesheet.
5. Having considered the submissions and having gone
through the chargesheet it is found that the entire investigation has
been concluded in the month of April, 2012 i.e. within the month of
registration of a crime. Thus, it can be seen that the delay is
deliberate and without any reason.
6. The application and affidavit without oath filed on
record is cryptic, vague and does not give any proper ground to
justify delay. It is just a cyclostyle typewritten application affidavit
with filling the blanks, which shows the lackadaisical attitude and
negligent approach even in making the application seeking
condonation of delay. When the ground of transfer is raised, atleast
the date of transfer and the place of transfer is to be mentioned, so
that it can be ascertain said ground is genuine or not.
7. Non mentioning of the material particulars is sufficient
to raise and adverse inference that delay is intentional, deliberate or
may be due to negligence to shild the accused. Even what technical
difficulties were in existence were also not mentioned except making
an omibus statement.
8. In these circumstances, absolutely there is no ground
raised to show genuine cause of delay. Thus, the chargesheet cannot
be accepted. As such, the prosecution seems not serious in filing the
delay condonation application.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
9. Resultantly, no justified explanation / cause for delay
found. No cognizance can be taken, as chargesheet is time barred
vide section 468 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, chargesheet rejected and
send back to the concern police station.
Date: 17.02.2020 (Sudhir N. Shinde),
Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court,
Ssl. Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --