RAMACHANDRAIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 7-2-1989, passed by the J. M. F. C. , Byadgi, in C. C. No. 5/88, taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 447 and 323 I. P. C. , alleged against the petitioners in the private complaint lodged against them by the respondent-complainant on 2-4-1985, alleging that the petitioners at about 5 p. m. on 22-3-1985 committed house trespass by entering into the house of the respondent-complainant at Hedigonda village and assaulted the respondent and his father with their hands and voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed offences under Sections 447 and 323 I. P. C. The learned J. M. F. C. took cognizance of the said offences by order dated 1-1-1988 and ordered issue of process against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused entered appearance in the trial-Court and after taking some adjournments filed an application on 15-12-1988 requesting the court not to proceed against them as cognizance of the offences alleged against them in the complaint of the respondent was taken by the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation of one year fixed under Section 468 (2) Cr. P. C. By order dated 7-2-1989, the learned J. M. F. C. , Byadgi, dismissed the said application qf the petitioners. Hence, this revision petition by the petitioners.

( 2 ) SRI. F. V. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate has committed grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of the offences alleged against them in the complaint and in condoning the delay even in the absence of any application by the respondent-complainant under Section 473 Cr. P. C. for condoning the delay. In support of the said submission, Sri. Patil placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v vedavati [1978 (1) Kar. LJ. 46].

( 3 ) IN my opinion, there is no substance in the above mentioned two submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the decision cited by him is distinguishable on the facts of the case on hand.

( 4 ) THE undisputed facts in the aforesaid decision were that the accused Vedavati had, according to the complainant, unauthorisedly cut and removed certain number of trees in the forest land on 25-12-1974 and chargesheet was filed in respect of that offence on 24-11-1976 without filing an application under Section 473 Cr. P. C. for condoning the delay in filing the charge- sheet. The point that arose for consideration in the said case was whether the Court was barred from taking cognizance of an offence committed on 25-12-1974 for which the charge-sheet was filed on 24-11-1976. In the light of the above mentioned facts, it is observed in the penultimate paragraph of the decision at page 48 as under:"the offence committed by the accused, if proved, is one falling under section 468 (2) (b) of the Cr. P. C. That being so, the charge-sheet should have been filed within one year from 25-12-1974. As regards the condonation of delay, it should not be condoned as a matter of course. The delay has to be condoned with exercise of judicial discretion. Section 473 of the Cr. P. C. empowers the Court to condone such delayj if sufficient cause is shown or if the interest of justice makes it necessary to do so. But the application of the section would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case of which the court would be required to exercise its judicial discretion in the matter like an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act. In the case on hand, a valuable right which had accrued to the accused could not have been interfered with by the learned Magistrate, there being no sufficient cause. "but, in the instant case, the respondent has admittedly filed the complaint within ten days of the alleged commis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document