KANDHAI AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OPPOSITE PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 1 -8-1983 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in Criminal Revision No. 100 of 1982.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly indicated as follows:-

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists as also the learned Government advocate and perused the record of the lower Courts. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 27-7-1980 but the cognisance by the learned Magistrate was taken on 30-7-1981 and it was clearly beyond the expiry of one years period prescribed for institution of the prosecution under Sec. 70(2) of the U P. Excise Act. He further contended that in case the learned Magistrate wanted to take congnisance of the said offence, he ought to have issued notice to the revisionists who had acquired a valuable right to the effect that there would be no prosecution thereafter. The argument proceeded that no such notice was issued to the revisionists, nor they were heard before the cognisance was taken by the learned Magistrate. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Sec. 473 Cr. P. C., which lays down that cognisance may be taken after the expiry of the period of limitation if the Court is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.