RAGHUNATH KHEMU TAMANKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE commencing the hearing of this application, Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants made a request that he may be permitted to amend the present application by incorporating a prayer for quashing the charge at Exhibit 21 which has been framed by the court. He has stated that grounds have been pleaded for quashing of the charge which has been framed. However, inadvertently a prayer to that effect has not been made. On consideration of his request, the applicants are permitted to amend a prayer clause by incorporating a prayer for quashing the charge at Exhibit 21 dated 31st July, 2002. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

(2.) THIS application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants who are the original accused in Criminal Case no. 122/s/2000/c, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at vasco -da-Gama. The applicants assail the order of the learned Sessions Judge, south Goa at Margao, dated 26th June, 2002, in Criminal Revision Application no. 17 of 2002, confirming the order dated 6th March, 2002, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, at Vasco-da-Gama, by which the learned trial Court condoned the delay under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IT appears that the prosecution filed an application at Exhibit 14 praying therein that the delay in filing the charge-sheet against the accused for an offence punishable under section 498-A r/w section 34 be condoned. The learned trial Court by its order dated 6th March, 2002, condoned the delay. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration that from the year 1995, the wife of the applicant No. 1 had been sincerely attempting for an amicable settlement and it was as a last resort in the year 1997 she gave a written complaint to a social organisation "savera" and since then, the President of the Organisation had been trying to convince the applicants and his other relations to take the first informant back. The learned trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the delay had been properly explained and also felt that it was necessary in the interest of justice to condone the delay.