Judgment

Thomas, J.—I have read with draft judgment prepared by my learned brother M.B. Shah J. and I respectfully agree with the conclusion that the judgment of the High Court should be interfered with and the Session Judge be directed to proceed from where he stopped. But I have a different approach regarding the interpretation of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). Interpretation of the said provision is of great practical importance in inquiries and trials. Hence I deem it appropriate to express my views on the interpretation of the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code.

2. The facts of this case reflect the glaring example of how failure to raise objection at the appropriate stage could procrastinate criminal proceedings unduly to unpalatable levels. Almost eleven years have passed since the alleged offence was committed (being in possession of arrack containing methyl alcohol) and except the first two years which the Excise Officers took for completing the formalities to launch the prosecution, the rest of the years rolled on due to the delay in court procedures. If the impugned order of the High Court is to sustain the already protracted crimi