Condonation of delay in filing a charge sheet is permissible under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code if the delay is satisfactorily explained and necessary for the interests of justice.

1. This petition is filed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Criminal Revision Application No. 32 of 1977. Condoning the delay in filing the charge - sheet against the petitioner, and setting aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Umbergaon in Criminal Case No. 656 of 1978, which was to the effect that as the charge - sheet was presented beyond the period of limitation, the charge - sheet was ordered to be filed and the process issued against the accused was quashed.

2. So far as the facts are concerned, they are not disputed, and averments are made to that effect in this revision petition also. It is a fact that the petitioner - accused was arrested for the commission of offences punishable under S.66(1)(b) and S.85(1) and (2), Bombay Prohibition Act , 1947, and S.110, Bombay Police Act , 1951. The accused was arrested at about 9.30 p.m. on 17-12-1976 on suspicion of having consumed alcohol. Blood sample was taken on that very day by the Medical Officer who clinically examined him. The blood sample was sent to the chemical Analyser on 18-12-1976, and as per the averment in the petition as well as in the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and Magistrate, it is a fact that the Chemical Analyser sent his report to the concerned Police Sub-Inspector on 7-9-1978, and the P.S.I. submitted the charge - sheet before the Court on 11-9-1978. Initially when the charge - sheet was submitted, the learned Magistrate called upon the P. S. I. by an order D/-18-9-1978 to show cause as retards the delay in submission of the charge - sheet. Thereafter, somehow or the other, there is an endorsement on the charge - sheet, which is typed, to register the same and to issue summons returnable on 20-11-1978. This order was passed on 21-10-1978. After the accused appeared before the Court, application Ex.5 was filed by the accused before the learned Magistrate on 19-2-1979 contending that the cognizance taken against the petitioner - accused by way of charge - sheet was beyond the period of limitation as provided under S.468 Cr.P.C. 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and, therefore, the following two issues should be raised and decided:
(1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant was within the period of limitation? And if it is not so.
(2) Whether the Court is entitled to hear the complaint on merits?
Surprisingly, both these issues suggested do not touch the point in dispute. First Information Report against the accused was already filed on 17-12-1976, and sent to the Court. It was received by the Court on 20-12-1976, as per the first paper in file No. 2 of the record. Therefore, it is not that the complaint was filed late. On the application Ex. 5, the learned Magistrate heard the accused as well as the prosecution, and considered that the alleged offence was committed by the accused on 17-12-1976 when he was arrested. The first information report is also of 17-12-1976. How - ever, the police report is filed in the Court on 10-9-1978. Then considering the legal provisions under Chap.36 of the Code, he considered that the charge - sheet was submitted late and that the cognizance would not be taken by the Court after a period of one year. He, therefore, passed the order filing the charge - sheet and quashing the process.

3 - 4. xxxx xxxx xxxx

5. The learned Sessions judge, on consideration of the application and also provisions of S.473 of the Code, came to the concision that the delay should be condoned and provisions of S.473 of the Act should be attracted. He therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate by allowing the revision petition, and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case from the stage of recording the plea of the accused and to follow the procedure provided for the summary trials and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the s