MAHMEDALAM ABDUL LATIF VOHRA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the original accused and they are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint and granting application Ex. 4 for accepting the explanation regarding the delay in filing the complaint under Sec. 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations in the complaint are that the two accused have been posing themselves as Medical Practitioners and practising allopathy medicine at village Nandasana showing medical degrees which are bogus and showing that they are Physician and Surgeon and thereby, they are committing offence punishable under Secs. 30, 32, 33 and 34 of the Gujarat Medical Practitioners Act. The accused gave an application Ex. 4 that the complaint was beyond time as the chargesheet was filed after 17 months of the registration of the offence on 3/06/1984. By Ex. 11, the prosecution explained delay and prayed for condoning delay. The learned Magistrate has condoned the delay and decided to proceed with the matter.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused submitted that the delay is not properly explained and that the trial Court has erred in taking cognizance of the offence. The learned trial Magistrate has found that the delay has been duly explained and the papers of investigation shows that the IO has carried on correspondence and reply was received from Bombay University in October 1984 and some proceedings were taken in the Sessions Court and the High Court in the matter of bail and conditions of bail and therefore, time had lapsed in filing the charge-sheet in the matter. The Court was satisfied about this explanation. The Court has considered that having regard to the allegations in the complaint, the public interest involved in the matter, the interest of justice requires that the delay should be condoned. The learned Magistrate has observed that the petitioners are practicing in rural area where the innocent, ignorant, poor and uneducated poor live and if the allegations against the petitioners are true, it would be a question of exploitation of such ignore and poor people and the question of public health and social security too is involved. In this connection, the learned Magistrate has relied on the decision of this Court reported in (State of Gujarat v. Chimanlal Gordhanbhai), (1978) XIX GLR 603. Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that when the delay is satisfactorily explained or if the interest of justice requires the Court can take cognizance of offience beyond the period of limitation. In the facts of this case, both these conditions are satisfied, even though one of these conditions that would have suffice for taking the cognizance in the matter. It would also be in the interest of the petitioners too that there is a decision on merits so that if the petitioners have not committed any offence, their name would be cleared and their reputation will not suffer.

(3.) The order of the learned Magistrate is quite legal and proper and the learned Magistrate has quite rightly and legally exercised his discretion. Hence no case is made out for any interference in this revision application. Hence the revision application fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing and disposal of the complaint. Interim relief vacated. (KMV) Petition dismissed.