THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEVILAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. By this petition, the State has challenged legality, correctness and propriety of the discretion exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge. Nagpur in passing order dated 21/3/2013, thereby rejecting the application filed by the State seeking condonation of delay that had occurred in preferring revision application challenging the order of closure of proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed on 14/12/2010 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagpur.

(2.) The State had filed a final report on 10/7/1999 against the respondents on the accusation that the respondents were indulging in illegal activity of manufacturing of country liquor in the premises of Shiv Shakti Fabricators, WIII, M.I.D.C., Hingna, Nagpur, thereby charge sheeting them for offences punishable under Sections 65B, 65D, 65E, 65F, 66(1)(B), 83, 86, 108 of the Bombay Prohibition Act. According to the State, in spite of several summons and warrants issued to the respondents, the respondents did not attend the trial of the case against them and also rendered them untraceable. Therefore, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14/10/2010 passed an order stopping further proceeding under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Since this order was sought to be reviewed by the State, the State filed an application for review of the order before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13/5/2011 and that came to be rejected on 14/12/2011 and thereafter at the behest of Law & Judiciary Department, Mumbai, the State preferred revision application with an application for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 714 of 2012 and after hearing both the sides it was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21/3/2013 on the ground that no sufficient cause had been shown by the State so as to enable the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the State.

(3.) According to learned A.P.P. for the State, the allegations against the respondents are of very serious nature and has larger ramifications on the interest of the public. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not understand the efforts taken by the State in procuring the attendance of the respondents before the Court in their proper perspective and therefore he submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has even observed so having regard to the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate apparently ought not to have treated the proceedings as summary and ought not to have exercised his power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. He submits that even then the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no sufficient cause has been shown in the matter. According to him, if no interference is made in this case, it will cause great loss to the society and will amount to perpetrators of the crime going sect free without being put on trial.