IMPORTANT POINT
Section 207, Cr.P.C. casts a judicial obligation on Magistrate to furnish free of costs copies of documents referred to therein to the accused.

ORDER

K. Ramachandriah, J. - The point that falls for determination in this criminal Petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. by the second accused in C. C. No. 1343/89 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City (for short 'the Magistrate') is whether the charge-sheet filed by the respondent against the petitioner and one Smt. P.V. Surayya on 21-3-1989 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(b) of the Pass-Ports Act, 1967 (for short 'the Act') by the first accused and the offence punishable under Section 12(2) of the Act by the petitioner is barred by time as the period of limitation of one year is prescribed under Section 468(2)(b) Cr. P.C. The learned Magistrate has by his order dated 12-3-1990 held that the chargesheet is filed within time.

2. The relevant facts arc the one P.V. Surayya, resident of Kalpakancheri in Kerala State filed an application for a passport in the passport officeal Bangalore on 12-8-1985 stating therein that she came within the jurisdiction of the Passport office, Bangalore as she was residing at No.4, Bore Bank Road, Benson Town, Bangalore-46 during the past two years. She also furnished the names and addresses of two persons, who are non "existent, in order to make it appear that they were the persons known to her so that the passport Authority may make reference to them in order to ascertain her credentials to get the passport. After making necessary enquiry through the Commissioner of Police, the Passport Authority issued a passport to the first accused and sent it to her Bangalore address by registered post. But, the cover containing the passport was returned undelivered, on 30-9-1985. Subsequently, the passport office found that the unreturned cover containing the passport of the first accused was missing in their office on 16-1-1986. Passport Authority came to know on 9-7-1987 that first accused P.V. Surayya had committed an offence and referred the matter to the cm for making necessary inquiry. Thereupon, cm registered a case in R.C. 36/87 under Section 12(2) of the Act. After making necessary investigation, the Special Police Establishment, cm, Bangalote-32 filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and the first accused in the Court of the learned Magistrate on 21-3-1989 alleging that the first accused and the petitioner (A-2) had committed the above mentioned offences. It is written at the foot of the charge-sheet by APP, cm, SPE, Bangalore, as under:

"The original statements of witnesses and documents will be submitted at the time of hearing this case since the same are required to finalise one connected case"

and the date 21-3-1989 is put below the signature of the said Officer. It is also mentioned in the chargesheet that previous sanction of the Central Government was obtained under Section 15 of the Act for prosecuting the accused and the sanction order is enclosed to the charge-sheet. On the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the above mentioned offences against the first accused and the petitioner and issued process against them. Petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate through his Advocate and raised a contention that the charge-sheet filed against him on 21-3-1989 was barred by limitation. Arguments on the point of limitation raised by the petitioner was heard oil 28-2-1990 and the case was posted for orders on 3-3-1990 it is noted in the order sheet dated 3-3-1990 that exemption application filed by the first accused is allowed and the case is posted to 5- 3-1990 to hear. It is noted in the Order-sheet dated 5-3-1990 that the prosecution filed calculation sheet regarding limitation and further arguments were heard and posted for orders by 12-3-1990. On 12-3-1990, the learned Magistrate pronounced the order holding that the charge-sheet filed by the petitioner is in time. It is that order that is questioned in this criminal petition.

3. So far a