AMEER ABDULLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos.2 to 8,11,12,15,20,23,24,29,31 to 33 in Cr.No.655/96 on the file of the respondent police, are the petitioners.

(2.) The respondent/complainant had registered a case against the accused petitioners and others in Cr.No.655/96, for the offences under Sections 147,148,448 and 427 I.P.C., for the incident or the commission of the offence said to have taken place on 3.7.1995. It seems, they have filed a final report on 7.5.1996 and the same was returned for rectification of some defects, by the Court on 10.5.1996. Thereafter, rectifying the defects, the final report was filed only on 24.7.1998.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, perusing the final report, came to the conclusion that the final report ought to have been filed, after rectifying the defects, on or before 3.7.1998, whereas the final report was filed only on 24.7.1998, after the prescribed period of limitation. In this view, he refused to take cognizance of the offence and rejected the same under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. As submitted by either party, the police have not questioned the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 24.7.1998, refusing to take cognizance of the offence, as time barred. The above facts are not in dispute. Therefore, ordinarily if the respondent/complainant was not satisfied, they ought to have preferred a revision under law, for setting aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, who refused to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate has no power, such as inherent one, to correct his own order or nullify the same by some other method, which could not be recognized under law.