This revision has been directed at the instance of the sole accused in C.C.No.21 of 2011 on the file of the learned VIII Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore as against the grant of extension of time for prosecution in C.M.P.No.272 of 2011.

2. On 25.8.2006, a road accident has been reported to the respondent police alleging that it is a case of rash and negligent driving of the accused and he has also caused injuries to the victim. The police registered a case in Cr.No.250 of 2006 under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. As per Sec.460 Cr.P.C., charge sheet is to be filed on or before 24.8.2009. However, it was not filed in time. Later, on 31.1.2011 final report was filed by the respondent police along with a petition in C.M.P.No.272 of 2011 under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of delay caused in filing the final report in the interest of justice.

3. The learned Magistrate in the said petition, passed the following impugned order:

''Records perused. Satisfied with the documents. Further statement of MVI Sivakumar and MVI report also enclosed. Hence delay condoned may be ordered.''

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused contended that the learned Magistrate has not followed the principles of natural justice. Although no proper reason has been given in the affidavit filed by the investigation officer, without assigning proper reason, the delay has been condoned. The impugned order is a non speaking order. Before passing the said order, no notice was given to the accused. Thus, the impugned order is vitiated. It suffers from legality and propriety.

5. In this respect, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner cited decision of this Court rendered in M.S. Jothimani vs. Inspector of Police, N.1 Royapuram Police station and another, (Crl.O.P.No.1730 of 2009 dated 12.02.2009).

6. On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the trial Court considering the factual aspects of the case, condoned the delay in the interest of justice.

7. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and the entire materials on record.

8. Chapter XXXVI, Code of Criminal Procedure contains the period of limitation in respect of taking cognizance of offence alleged to have been committed. The different periods of limitation has been prescribed for certain types of offences depending upon the gravity of the offence. It seeks to prescribe the limitation depending upon the nature of offence, heinous character of the offence at the most, upto 3 years has been prescribed for the period of limitation for certain category of offence with respect to which Court can take cognizance under section 192 Cr.P.C. For the purpose of limitation, date of offence has to be taken to compute the limitation period for taking cognizance. The Code also contains exclusion of time in computing the limitation period under certain circumstances investigation is not under the control of the investigation agency. The provisions to condone the delay has been made under Sec.473 Cr.P.C. and to extend the time prescribed in Sec.468 Cr.P.C.

9. It will be useful to extract Section 473 Cr.P.C. as under:

"Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:

Notwithstanding any thing contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any court may make cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitations, 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 so to do in the interests of justice.''

10. The exercise of judicial discretion vested under section 473 Cr.P.C. is regulated by two considerations viz., when the delay is satisfactorily explained to the Court or it is so necessary in the interest of justice, delay can be condoned. Therefore, under these two parameters upon which the Court which has power to take cognizance, can extend the time and take cognizance on the final report filed by the investigation