Back
1993 Supreme(SC) 885
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.)
SUKHDEV RAJ .. Appellant;
STATE OF PUNJAB .. Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1985, decided on September 28, 1993
Under Section 473 CrPC, a court may take cognizance of an offense after the limitation period if the delay is explained or in the interest of justice, and such an application for condonation need not be filed at the time of filing the challan.
Headnote:(A) Opium Act - Section 9 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 468 and 473 - Cognizance of offense - Delay in filing challan - Condonation of delay - Whether cognizance can be taken after the expiry of the period of limitation if the delay is explained or in the interest of justice - Section 473 CrPC does not explicitly require the application for condonation of delay to be filed at the time of filing the challan - The phrase "so to do in the interest of justice" is wide enough to allow the court to accept the explanation.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act for possession of 23 kgs of opium. Although the occurrence took place on 31-5-1974, the challan was filed on 29-8-1977. A challenge was raised regarding the legality of taking cognizance in view of the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC. An application for condoning the delay was filed, which the appellant contended was filed too late, near the conclusion of the trial and before judgment was delivered.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court was justified in taking cognizance under Section 473 CrPC as the delay was explained and it was in the interest of justice.
Issues: Whether the court could take cognizance of the offense despite the delay in filing the challan and whether the application for condonation of delay must be filed at the time of filing the challan.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 473 CrPC allows a court to take cognizance of an offense after the limitation period if the delay is explained or if it is necessary in the interest of justice. The statute does not mandate that the application for condonation be filed simultaneously with the filing of the challan.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
narcotics offences
- opium act
-
narcotics offences
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
-
cognizance and limitation
- condonation of delay
-
cognizance and limitation
-
criminal procedure
ORDER
The appellant has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to three years RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default to undergo six months RI. He was found in possession 23 kgs of opium. In the appeal before the High Court the only question raised was that though occurrence took place on 31-5-1974 challan was filed on 29-8-1977, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken in view of Section 468 CrPC. The High Court has considered this aspect and after referring to Section 473 CrPC held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the court can take cognizance if the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. In any event in this case an application was filed for condoning the delay and also explaining the delay at a later stage. According to the learned counsel for the appellant such an application was filed only after almost at the time of conclusion of trial and before judgment was delivered. It may be noted Section 473 CrPC does not in any clear terms lay down that the application should be filed at the time of filing a challan itself. The words "so to do in the interest of justice" are wide enough and the court accepted the explanation. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
For Citation : 1994 Supp (2) SCC 398
