The court may condone the delay in filing a complaint under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code) if the delay has been properly explained or if it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 473 - LIMITATION FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF CERTAIN OFFENCES - DELAY IN FILING COMPLAINT - CONDONATION OF DELAY - INTEREST OF JUSTICE - STATUTORY BODY - AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET ACT - FEES - NON-PAYMENT - PROSECUTION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - INHERENT JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - ENDS OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, licensed under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1959, were accused of not paying fees and not rendering accounts for the purchase and sale of paddy within the notified market areas. Complaints were filed against them for violation of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioners filed petitions to quash the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code). The trial court overruled the preliminary objection and condoned the delay, holding that the complainants were statutory bodies and had to follow formalities before filing the complaints.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code) empowers the court to take cognizance of an offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation in the interest of justice. The court found that the complainants had not shown any acceptable reason for the delay in filing the complaints, but that the delay was not due to negligence or inaction on their part. The court also found that the petitioners had not suffered any prejudice due to the delay. Therefore, the court held that the trial court was justified in condoning the delay and that the proceedings should not be quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code)? 2. Whether the delay in filing the complaints could be condoned under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code)? 3. Whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code) bars the court from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. 2. Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code (New Code) empowers the court to take cognizance of an offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation if the delay has been properly explained or if it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. 3. The court may quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code if it finds that the prosecution is an abuse of the process of court or if it is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petitions and directed the trial court to dispose of the cases expeditiously.

Judgment :-

The petitioners in all the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions have come to this court with a prayer that the prosecution launched in support of those petitions now pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ulundurpet may be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 Criminal P.C. (New Code). As the only ground on which they seek the remedy by these petitions is a common one, namely, the question of limitation regarding the institutions of the prosecution cases before the said Court, all these petitions are clubbed together and common order is passed.

2. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 307, 289 and 357 of 1975 are filed in respect of the proceedings taken in C. C. Nos. 505, 506 and 508 of 1974 now pending on the file of the said Court. In all these cases, the Superintendent, Regulated Market of the South Arcot Market Committee, Kallakurichi is the complainant.

3. Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 291, 491, 489 and 503 of 1975 are filed in respect of the proceedings taken in pursuance of Crl. M.P. Nos. 1442, 1446, 1443 and 1445/1974 (in C.C. Nos. 45 to 48 of 1975). The Superintendent, Regulated Market of the South Arcot Market Committee, Chinnasalem is the complainant in respect of these batches of cases.

4. The accusation against these petitioners is that all these petitioners are the licences under S. 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Market Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and they have been dealing in paddy, a notified agricultural produce by purchasing and selling the same within the concerned notified market areas. Under the above said Act, the petitioners are bound to pay fees on ad valorem basis for every one-hundred rupees of the aggregate for which the notified agriculture produce is bought or sold. Further case is that these petitioner have not paid the said for the period noted in the complaints. Nor have rendered accounts into the concerned Market Committees of all transactions in paddy within the notified areas for the said periods, and that all of them in spite of notices, did not even care to send a reply. Hence the prosecutions were launched against them independently for the violation of S. 18(1) of the Act and R. 51(A) (5) of the Rules framed thereunder read with S. 25(a) and(b) of the said Act, namely for the non-payment of the fees without giving proper accounts for the quantity purchased or sold.

5. As per the prosecution the petitioners in Cri M.P. Nos. 307, 289 and 357 of 1975 are default of the payment of the fees to the tune of Rs. 15, 509.30; Rupees 8, 371.50 and Rs. 10, 809.60 respectively to the Kallakurichi Market Committee and in Criminal M.P. Nos. 291, 491 and 503 of 1975 are in default of payment of fees to the tune if Rs. 20, 767.10; Rs. 2, 60430; Rs. 4, 040.20 and Rs. 4, 954.10 respectively to the Chinnasalem market Committee in respect of the dealing in paddy.

6. In all these cases, each petitioner accused has filed a separate petition raising a preliminary objection that the complaint filed against him is barred by limitation in view of Sec, 468 Cr.P.C. (new Code 1973) which enjoins the petitioner a valuable right which cannot easily be ignored and as the offence is punished only;y with fine, the complainant ought to have come to the Court within six months from the date of the commission of the offence. Again it is contended that since the proceedings in all these cases were instituted only after the introduction of the New Code, though the offence are said to have been committed before the new Code came into force S. 468 is clearly applicable to these cases which prohibits the filing of the proceedings beyond the prescribed period.

7. The trial Court almost passed a similar order overruling the preliminary objection. In each and every case, the complainant has filed an application for condonation of the delay contending that the Agricultural Market Committee is a statutory body established by the G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document