SANJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing of the criminal proceeding emanating from FIR No.253/1995 registered at P.S.Gandhi Nagar for offences under Section 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of IPC pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate at Karkardooma Courts.

(2.) The question that arises for determination in this case is whether the Magistrate has rightly exercised his power given under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. (the Code) in extending the limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code for taking cognizance of the offence in a criminal proceedings instituted on police report under Section 173 (2) of the Code for the prosecution of the petitioner. Factual matrix of the case as disclosed in the petition, the documents filed and the trial court record, briefly stated, is that a joint inspection team of the DESU (now DVB) conducted a raid on 13.11,1995 at premises no.9/7137, Durga Gali , Gandhi Nagar,Delhi, of, which the petitioners were occupant, and detected theft of electricity by attachment of neutral wire of the electricity meter directly connected , to the load resulting non-recording of the consumption of the electrical energy by the meter. Petitioner no.1 was occupying two shops, petitioner no.2 was also in possession of two shops and petitioner no.3 was occupying one shop in the said building. DESU raised theft electricity bills with penalties in August, 1996 which were duly paid by the petitioners. DESU also installed new electricity meter in the premises of petitioners no.1 and 2 and they are now paying electricity bills as per meter reading regularly. In March, 2000 petitioners received summons from the court of a Metropolitan Magistrate for appearance on 5.4.2000. Learned Magistrate was on leave on 5.4.2000 so the matter was adjourned to 24.4.2000. Magistrate was again on leave on 24.4.2000 so the case was adjourned to 22.5.2000. The FIR in the case was registered in 1995 but the inspection of the record showed that the cognizance of offence in the matter was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.3.2000 i.e. almost 4/1,2 years after the registration of the case. It also transpired that the charge-sheet in the case was filed in the court on 14.10.1999 i.e. after almost four years of the date of the commission of the offence when it had become hopelessly time barred. It is contended that the trial court Magistrate without applying his mind took the cognizance on 6.3.2000, after condoning long delay in a mechanical manner, therefore, the order is vitiated and Is liable to be quashed.

(3.) From the record it appears that after the charge-sheet was put up in the court on 14.10.1999 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed checking of the challan and registration of the case and posted the matter on 6.11.1999 for consideration of the challan. From 6.11.1999 to 16.2.200 this case was adjourned five times as the 10 did not appear despite notice and other processes issued by the court. On 16.2.2000 the 10 appeared and filed an application for condonation of delay. The court then fixed 19.2.2000 for consideration of this application. On the next date again the 10 absented and bailable warrant was issued against him for 6.3.2000. 10 then appeared and the learned Magistrate after hearing the 10 allowed, the application for condonation of delay, took cognizance of the offence and Issued summons to the accused for 5.4.2000, The petitioners are aggrieved and have challenged the order of the trial court dated 6.11.1999.