ABUBAKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The final report in a crime was submitted in court after three years of the date of occurrence. The occurrence took place on 14.5.1995 and the final report was submitted in court on 9.6.1999. The petitioners who are the accused in the crime seek to quash the proceedings in the criminal case alleging that cognizance of the offences was taken by the Magistrate after three years of the occurrence.

(2.) S.468 Cr. P.C. provides that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years is three years. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners in the final report are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. S.473 Cr. P.C. deals with extension of period of limitation in certain cases. What that Section provides is that notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions in Chap.35, the court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, 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. The satisfaction mentioned in S.473 Cr.P.C. regarding the explanation for the delay is that of the court which takes cognizance of the offence.

(3.) In this crime, as is seen from the case diary made available by the learned Public Prosecutor for perusal, a refer report was sent to the court by the Investigating Officer. After that, as directed by the Inspector General of Police, Central Zone, Ernakulam by letter dated 26.7.1996, the Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithura conducted further investigation of the crime. It is seen that the C.D. file in Crime No. 92 of 1995 of Kalamassery Police Station was also forwarded along with the letter sent by the Inspector General of Police. There was a further direction in that letter that the case had to be reinvestigated. What has to be understood from the letter is that direction was given by the Inspector General of Police for reinvestigation of the crime after going through the C.D. file in Crime No. 92 of 1995 of Kalamassery Police Station. On 29.7.1996, the Circle Inspector of Police who was asked to reinvestigate the crime sent report to the Magistrate stating that refer report had already been sent to court and as directed by the Inspector General of Police, he was conducting reinvestigation of the crime. The report sent to court saying that reinvestigation of the crime was being done by the Circle Inspector of Police was before the court accepting the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer earlier. Thereafter on completing the investigation, final report was submitted in court on the basis of which a case was taken on the file of the Magistrate.