Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: … 1 …
C. C. NO.661/Misc/2019
Police Station Santacruz
State V/s. Deepak and Ors
ORDER
1. The accused are alleged of offence u/s. 294, 34 of IPC.
2. The accused preferred application to dispose of the case as the
chargesheet is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. According to
them, congnizance of the offence should not be taken because the chargesheet
has been filed after lapse of time and no convincing reason is supplied therefor.
They relied on 'State of Panjab V/s. Sarvansingh 1989 SCALE (1) 619' to support
their submission.
3. The I.O. filed his say. It is stated that due to Bandobast on account
of Ganesh Festival, Navratri Festival and Chattpooja and due to heavy workload,
the chargesheet could not be presented within time. Application for condonation
of delay is also moved. The APP also prayed for condonation of delay.
4. The offence u/s. 294 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment upto
3 months or with fine or with both. Sec. 468 of CrPC imposes bar on taking
congnizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation mentioned in it.
Sub Sec. 2 (b) of the said provision prescribes period of limitation of 1 year in
case the offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding 1 year. Further,
in view of Sec. 469, period of limitation commences from the date of the offence.
Thus, for the purpose of taking congnizance of the alleged offence, the
chargesheet might have been filed within 1 year of its occurrence.
5. The FIR refers to the date of offence as 20.01.2017. Information
about it received in the police station on 21.01.2017. The names of the offenders
are also mentioned in the FIR. Thus, the present case does not fall within any of
the exceptions mentioned in the Sec. 469 of CrPC that will postpone the
-- 1 of 3 --
… 2 …
commencement of period of limitation. As the occurrence of alleged offence and
the names of the offenders were within the knowledge of the first informant and
the investigating officer, period of limitation will surely commence from the date
of occurrence itself. As such, the chargesheet could have been filed within 1 year
of the occurrence of the alleged incident i.e. till 20.01.2018. However, the
chargesheet is filed on 04.12.2019. The delay of 1 year 10 months and 15 days
has occurred in filing of chargesheet. It is incumbent to examine whether the
delay has been properly explained by the investigating machinery.
6. It is submitted that due to Bandobast duty on festive occasions and
heavy workload, the chargesheet could not be presented within time. However,
no details are supplied about the duration of Bandobast duty. The festive season
mentioned in the say of the I.O. is for short duration. No explanation is
advanced for the rest of the period during which there was no festive season. So
also the term 'heavy workload' is very vague. Again there is no clarification in
this regard which prevented the investigating machinery to file the chargesheet
within time. The I.O. and also the APP could not supply any plausible and
convincing reason for the delay caused. The application for condonation of delay
as well as the say filed by the I.O. are very formal in nature and appear to be
filed merely with a view to keep something on record in order to avoid the
blame. However, such kind of applications and say will not absolve them on the
liability. It is not sufficient to escape the rigors of Sec. 468 and 469 of CrPC.
The investigating machinery has miserably failed in its duty to file the
chargesheet within the limitation and also in explaining the delay so caused. As
already stated, the chargesheet has been filed after expiry of period of limitation.
For the aforesaid reasons, the chargesheet cannot be accepted. The persons
responsible will have to shoulder the responsibility for it. The accused will have
to be let go free due to careless and lethargic approach of the concerned police
officers. Hence, this order be communicated to the Commissioner of Police,
-- 2 of 3 --
… 3 …
Mumbai in order to fix responsibility on the erring officers.
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Date:30012020 71st Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 3 --