JUDGMENT

Dr. ANAND, J.:- Leave granted.

2. On 23rd of August, 1985 officers of the Prohibition and Excise Department of the State of Maharashtra along with the officers of the Sales Tax and Income-tax Departments carried out surprise raids at the brewery of M/s. Doburg Lager Breweries Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act at Satara. Searches were also made at the office of the respondent on 26th August, 1985 and 4th of October, 1985. The raids were conducted on the ground that offences had been committed by the respondent relating to manufacture and selling of beer without payment of Excise Duty. On 22nd November, 1985 cases were registered against the respondent under Ss. 65(b), (d), (e), 66(1)(b), 72, 75(c), 77(b), 79,82(1), 83 and 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

3. After the registration of the cases against the respondents, investigation was carried out and on 21st November, 1986 five charge-sheets were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara. Simultaneously, the prosecution also filed two applications before the CJM. In the first application, it was stated that though the nature of the offence was a continuing one and therefore there was no delay in filing the charge-sheet but if for any technical reason it appeared to the Court that there was some delay in filing the same then, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the delay may kindly are condoned. In the second application, the prosecution interalia stated that the bulk of the evidence had been recorded and filed along with the charge-sheet, some evidence against some of the accused persons, who had not been sent up for trial, was yet to be collected and therefore permission was sought to make further investigation and collect further additional evidence in respect of the offence and to file an "additional charge-sheet" within six months from the date of the application. On 21-11-1986, the CJM took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the respondents. While the second application was kept pending for orders, the application for condonation of delay was allowed on 21-11-1986, itself. The respondent challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21-11-1986 in the High Court and sought quashing of the same in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. The case of the respondents before the High Court was that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have condoned the delay in launching the prosecution without notice to the respondents and permitting them to have their say. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21-11-1986 was also assailed on the ground that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence on an "incomplete police report" and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to issue the progress against the respondents.

4. The High Court found the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 21-11-1986, had allowed the application for condonation of delay in filling the charge-sheet, without recording any reasons and without hearing the respondents and behind their back. The High Court further found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was aware from the application field by the prosecution that the charge-sheet was "incomplete" and as such, it

could not have taken cognizance of the offence and it had no jurisdiction to issue the process against the respondents. The proceedings, including the issuance of process, were accordingly quashed.

5. In our view, High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the delay, if any, for launching the prosecution, could not have been condoned without notice to the respondents and behind their back and without recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. However, having come to that conclusion, it would have been appropriate for the High Court, without going into the merits of the case to have remitted the case to the trial Court, with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh aft