PRAVIN CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. N. Gupta, J. On 25-5-1987 Sri G. D. Dwlvedi, Inspector of C. B. , C. I. D. lodged an FIR against the petitioner, Harish Chandra Gupta, Rajendra Kumar Verma and Ram Babu under Section 3/4 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Act No. 43 of 1978) in substance alleging that the accused persons were running a Chit Fund Company in the name and style of UP. Saving and General Finance, having its head office at Bareilly and branches at Shahjahanpur, Siiapur, Budaun, Morada-bad, Lahimpur- Kheri, Palla Kalan, Lucknow and Haldwani. It was stated in the FIR that on the pretext of distributing at tractive prizes, Chit Schemes were being operated against law and money was being extracted from the Public in monthly in stalments. It was also mentioned that even after submitting winding up proposals to the State Government, several schemes were being run, the details of which were given in the FIR. The number of such schemes mentioned in the FIR is atleast 7, After completing investigation, C. B. , C. I. D. submitted charge-sheet before the competent Court on 11-1-1996 with an application for condonation of delay. Sec tion 3 of the said Act provides that no per son shall promote or conduct any prize, chit or money circulation, scheme, or enrol as a member to any such chit or scheme, or participate in it otherwise, or receive or remit any money in pursuance of such chit or scheme. Section 4 provides that who ever contravenes the provisions of Section 3, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five thou sand rupees or with both. Proviso to Sec tion 4 lays down that except in the absence of special and adequate reasons to the contrary to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, the imprisonment shall not be less than one year and the fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees. Section 468 (2) (c) Cr. P. C. provides that if the offence is punishable wiih imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years, the limitation for the court to take cognizance of the offence shall be 3 years. Since the charge-sheet had admittedly been submitted to the court after expiry of the aforesaid period of 3 years, an applica tion under Section 473, Cr. P. C. was moved which provide that notwithstanding any thing contained in the fore going provi sions of this Chapter, which includes Sec tion 468, Cr. P. C. any court may take cogni zance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the inter est of justice.

(2.) LEARNED Magistrate by means of this impugned order dated 19-1-1996 without issuing notice to the accused per sons or without giving an opportunity of hearing, allowed the prosecution applica tion under Section 473, Cr. P. C. and con doned the delay in filing the charge-sheet and summoned the accused persons for 10th March, 1996 after taking cognizance of the offence.