STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SURESH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the order dated 25.06.2015, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi as well as order dated 04.04.2013, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that F.I.R. was got registered on 01.12.2009, under Ss. 279, 323, 337 and 338 I.P.C., by Smt. Gulabi Devi; revenue Inspector, Bhatwari was investigating the matter; revenue Inspector, Bhatwari did not complete the investigation at the earliest and submitted chargesheet on 22.01.2013, after expiry of more than three years from the registration of the F.I.R.; learned Magistrate has returned the chargesheet saying it was submitted beyond the statutory period of limitation and no request was made for the condonation of delay; thereafter, again chargesheet was submitted on 12.03.2013 alongwith application seeking condonation of delay with the request that earlier order returning the chargesheet may be recalled and chargesheet may be admitted but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 04.04.2013, was pleased to reject the application moved by the State Government saying delay has not been explained and Magistrate has absolutely no jurisdiction to recall his earlier order whereby chargesheet was returned. Order dated 04.04.2013 was assailed before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2013, however, same was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge saying, first of all, delay has not been explained and, secondly, learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to recall its earlier order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod Kumar Jemini, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State fairly submits that prior to 22.03.2013, when for the first time, chargesheet was submitted before the Magistrate, there was no natural calamity in the area. That being so, in my opinion, there is absolutely no explanation from the State as to why investigation could not be completed within the statutory period. If Investigating Officer was negligent in his duty, this is not the ground to condone the delay.

(3.) In view of the above, I do not find any reason to take contrary view to the view taken by both the courts below.