IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The illegal investigation conducted beyond the period of six months without an order of the Magistrate would not taint the action in taking cognizance of the offence and the subsequent proceedings, with any illegality without proof of prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
2. In view of the absence of incorporation of the rule of natural justice in Sec. 473 of Criminal Procedure Code the act of the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offences after expiry of the period of limitation without notice to the accused, cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(5) - Summons Case - Effect of the breach of mandatory provision on the action taken by the Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence - The illegal investigation conducted beyond the period of six months without an order of the Magistrate would not taint the action in taking cognizance of the offence and the subsequent proceedings, with any illegality without proof of prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 473 - Extension of period of limitation in certain cases - Power to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation - Grant of the prayer made without notice to the accused. Whether on the basis of such order his act of taking cognizance of the offences and issuance of process, can be said to be without jurisdiction on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice? - (No, such a conclusion cannot be drawn on the plain language employed by the legislature in Sec. 473 of the Code).
       Held: Indeed it is true once the period of limitation prescribed under the Code for prosecuting a person for the offence alleged to have been committed by him expires, valuable right accrues to him to the effect that there would be no prosecution thereafter. In that view of the matter it may be desirable to issue notice to the Accused of the motion made by the prosecution and to give him an opportunity for meeting the case in regard to the extension of time. Such a course undoubtedly would be in consonance with the salutory principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice. But the failure on the part of the Court to take the course as indicated above, in view of the absence of incorporation of the rule of natural justice in Section 473 of the Code would not render the grant of extension of time and the action of taking the cognizance of the offence and commencement of the proceedings, invalid. (Para 35)
       Further held: Section 473 of the Code gives discretion to the Court to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the time of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. In the case on hand, the conclusion of the learned Magistrate that the delay has not been properly explained is not correct and that therefore, can not be sustained. (Para 42)
       (iii) Constitution of India 1950 - Art. 17 - Protection of Civil' Rights Act, 1955 - Section 4 Criqlinal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 473 Accused were prosecuted with the allegations of having enforced disability against the members of Scheduled Caste Community on the ground of untouchability, with regard to the access of the members of the said community to a Tea hotel-A fit case to take cognizance of the offences after expiry of the period of limitation, in the interest of justice. (Paras 44 & 45).
       Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

K.B. Navadgi, J. - This is a Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short). It is directed against the order dated 27 -119R7 made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udupi, in C.C. No. 210/86 on his file. Under the order impugned in this Revision Petition, the learned Magistrate has stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of the Code and has discharged respondents Nos. 1 and 2 of the offences alleged against them.

2. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (accused Nos. 1 and 2) are heard. The record of the matter and the record and proceedings of the Court below are perused and examined.

3. To decide the correctness, legality or propriety of the order assailed in this Revision Petition, it is necessary to refer to the facts leading to this Revision Petition. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:

On 22-11-1982 at about 5 P.M., N.R. Nadumani, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi, conducted raid on the Tea Hotel owned and run by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Innanje village on the basis of a petition filed by one Gopala Krishna Rao, the Chairman of the Panchayat Committee, Pangala village, in the presence of the said Gopala Krishna Rao and one Chinnappa, the resident of village Innanje, belonging to Harijan community. During the course of the raid, he found certain utensils having been kept in the hotel separately for the use of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste (Harijans). He noticed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 enforcing disability against Harijans on the ground of untouchability.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by the said Gopala Krishna Rao, Raghunath Rao the Head Constable bearing Buckle No. 855, attached to Shirva Police Station, registered a case against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 92/ 82 under sub-sections (1) and (ii) of Section 4 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), issued F.I.R. and took-up investigation. The complaint was lodged on 22-11-1982 at about 4- 30 P.M. and he case was registered at 5 P.M. on the same day.

The allegations in the complaint are that Laxminarayana Bhat, respondent No.1, and Shashikanth Bhat, respondent No.2, who are father and son and who were accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the Court below (hereinafter referred to as accused No.1 and accused No.2 respectively) committed the offences specified in sub-sections (i) and (ii) of Section 4 of the Act punishable thereunder. Accused Nos.1 and 2,as noticed earlier, are the owners of a Tea Hotel run by them in village Innanje within the limits of Pangala Panchayat Samithi.

During the course of the raid, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udupi, , seized a lower part of a coconut chip alleged to have been kept by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in their hotel for drinking tea by the members belonging to Scheduled Caste, sitting outside the hotel The article was seized during the course of observation panchanama. It was produced before the Magistrate by Raghunath Rao, the Head Constable, seeking permission to retain it till the completion of investigation.

During the course of investigation, Raghunath Rae, the Head Constable arrested accused No.2 on 22-11-1982 at about 6-30 P.M. in the village. Accused No.2 was produced before the Magistrate the next day and was released on bail.

It appears, H.L. Ravi Kumar, then working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Shirva Police Station, cited as CSW-5 in the charge-sheet, took-over further investigation from Raghunath Rao. Later H.L. Ravi Kumar questioned and recorded the Statements of Madhava Murthy, CSW-7 and Sunder, CSW-6 on 30-11-1982 and of Chinnappa, CSW-2 on 2-3-1983.

H.L. Ravi Kumar, CSW-5, Practically completed the investigation by 24-1-1983 and prepared the final report for being submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate along with accused Nos.1 and 2 for trial of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

KARNATAKA HIGH COURTK.B. Navadgi, J.The State of Karnataka - PetitionerversusLaxminarayana Bhat & Anr. - RespondentsCrl. Rev. Petitioner No. 462 of 1987Decided on 25-1-1991Counsel for the parties:For the Petitioner - Mr. B.R. Nanjundaiah, Advocate.For the RespOndents - Mr. R.B. Deshpande Advocate.