Cognizance of a charge cannot be taken if the limitation period has expired, regardless of the circumstances of the case.

O R D E R

Dated this the 5th day of August 2021 The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.8/2021 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III (Juvenile Justice Board), Ernakulam arising from out of Crime No.1778/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police Station for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

21.08.2013 the petitioners in furtherance of common intention committed theft of a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-07-AW-7874 parked at the Marine Drive, Ernakulam. In consequence of that, the crime was registered on 27.08.2013 initially under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners were arrested and, being juvenile in conflict with law, produced before the Individual Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (for short “Board”) and released on bail. No investigation was thereafter conducted for an unexplained period of eight years. The petitioners are not involved in any other crime. They have to look out for jobs and even intend to go abroad to eke out a living, after obtaining a passport.

Because of this criminal case pending against them, they are not in a position to apply for a passport. The final report was filed after the petitioners had approached this Court in Crl.M.C.No.265/2021 challenging Annexure A1 F.I.R. The M.C. was closed on the basis of the report filed by the investigating officer that the final report has already been filed. It is submitted that there is an unreasonable delay in filing the final report. Under Rule 10(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules , 2016 (for short “Model Rules”), in cases of petty or serious offences, the final report shall be filed before the Board at the earliest and in any case not beyond the period of two months from the date of information to the police, except in those cases where it was not reasonably known that the person involved in the offence was a child, in which case extension of time may be granted by the Board for filing the final report. In the instant case, the petitioners were known to be juvenile in conflict with law. Yet there was unexplained delay in filing the final report and no extension has been granted by the Board, and therefore, it is prayed that the entire proceedings in the above crime may be quashed.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Annexure A1 F.I.R. was registered on 27.08.2013 and in that the petitioners name got mentioned as offenders, when they were both aged only 17. Hence, it is clear that the investigating officer was aware of the fact that the petitioners were juveniles. The final report at Annexure A2 was prepared on 05.09.2013. A report was called for from the Principal Magistrate/JJB Ernakulam and it was submitted that the F.I.R. in the crime was received on 28.09.2013 and the charge sheet was produced before the court only on 15.02.2021, which itself was defective.

After curing the defects pointed out, it was resubmitted on 23.02.2021 and taken on file as C.C.No.8/2021 on 24.02.2021. The Station House Officer has also filed a report before this Court, through the Government Prosecutor, in which it is stated that the crime was originally registered as Crime No.1494/2013 at the North Paravoor Police Station and was transferred to the Central Police Station and re-registered as Crime No.1778/2013 and after investigation, the then investigating officer has prepared the charge sheet on 05.09.2013. The Ernakulam Central Police Station being one of the heaviest police stations in the State of Kerala, having an average of 3500 cases registered every year, and in the midst of heavy work and law and order duty, the C.D. files of the crime were misplaced in the police station for a long period of time, and ultimately, the charge sheet was laid before the JJB on 12.02.2021. This explanation given by the S.H.O. is not acceptable. Even under