MOHAMMAD ILLAYAS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two applications in revision against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of saharanpur dismissing the applicants' appeal under Section 476-B, Cr, P. C. on the ground that they were barred by time.

(2.) IN proceedings under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate found on 27-9-1950 that it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint for the offence of section 193, I. P. C. which appeared to have been committed by them, what the learned magistrate actually did was to write that he had seen the file and heard counsel for the parties, that a 'prima facie' case under Section 476 read with Section 195, Cr. P. C. was made out and that a complaint would be made against the applicants for their prosecution under Section 193, etc. On the same date he made a complaint against them and it was sent to a court of competent jurisdiction. The applicants filed an appeal under Section 476-B, Cr. P. C. against the finding of the learned magistrate. The appeal was dismissed on 6-11-1951 by the Sessions Judge who held that the appeal should have been filed, not against the finding but against the making of the complaint. On 14-11-51 the applicants applied for a copy of the complaint made against them. They got it on 24-12-'51 and filed the appeal on 2-l-'52. As by that date the appeal had become barred by time, they applied for extension of the period of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed their application and dismissed the appeal as barred by time.

(3.) SECTION 476 lays down that when a court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) or (c), it,