The court held that the delay in filing the report under Section 173 of the CrPC was not properly explained and that there were no good grounds for taking cognizance of the offense in the interest of justice after the expiry of the limitation period.

( 1 ) THE present revision petition Nos. 53, 54, and 52 filed by Sarvshri Sanjay Gandhi, Jagmohan, and Ranbir Singh respectively under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Code) seek to invoke the revisional and inherent powers for quashing and order dated 11th February 1980 of Shri K. P. Verma, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi allowing under Section 473 of the Code, launching of prosecution against the petitioners beyond and after the expiry of period of limitation as prescribed by Section 468 of the Code. As all the petitions are in respect of the same order they are being decided together by means of one judgment which is being written in Revision Petition No. 54 of 1980 tiled Shri Jagmohan.

( 2 ) ON 28th May 1977, Government of India acting under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiries Act, appointed a commission of inquiry with Mr. Justice J. G. Shah, retired Chief Justice of India as the Chairman. That Commission submitted two reports dated 11 th March 1978 and 26th April 1978. In report dated 26th April 1978 the said Commission of Inquiry gave findings in respect of commission of offences by the present petitioners by way of carrying out illegal demolitions of some shops and houses in and around villages Kapeshera and Smalka situated in the Union territory of Delhi.

( 3 ) DUE to aforesaid findings of Shah Commission, C. B. I, investigated the matter. The G. B. I, filed a report under Section 173 of the Code on 17th July 1979. As by that time cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the present petitioners was barred by limitation under S. 468 of the Code, an application under Section 473 of the Code dated 16th July 1979 was made by Public Prosecution for condoning the delay and taking cognizance of the offences notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution it was in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy between the present petitioners that aforesaid illegal demolitions were carried out from September 4 to December 31, 1975. It is alleged by the prosecution that all the petitioners thus committed offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 427, 448 and 166 Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that each of Shri Sanjay Gandhi and Shri Jagmohan petitioners committed offences punishable under Section 427 and 448 read with S. 109 1. P. G" while Shri Ranbir Singh petitioner committed offences punishable under Section 427, 448 and 166 read with Section 109 Indian Penal Code.

( 5 ) SECTION 468 of the Code, which prescribes limitation for taking cognizance of different offences, reads as under : "468 (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation shall be : a) Six months if the offence is punishable with fine only; b) One year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; e) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. " Punishment for offence of conspiracy under Section 120-B is the same as is for the offence for the commission of which the conspiracy is. Punishment provided for offence punishable under Section 427 is imprisonment for two years or fine or both. Punishment for offence punishable under Section 448 is imprisonment for one year or fine of Rs. 1000. 00 or both. Punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 166 is simple imprisonment for one year or fine or both. Therefore, period of limitation for the offence punishable under Section 448 and 166 is one year while period of limitation for the offence punishable under Section 427 is three years. According to Section 469 of the Code starting point for limitation is one year from the date of commission of the offence. There