VINAYAK STEELS LTD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1930 of 1998 dated 11-6-1999 in C.C. No.107 of 1999.

(2.) Crime No.4 of 1999 was registered by the Vigilance Anti-power Theft Squad, of A.P.S.E.B., Nalgonda for the offences under Sections 12C-B and 379 IPC and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for theft of electricity by meddling with the wires in the meter board. The loss was assessed at Rs.3,63,42,021/-. The offence was detected on 20-3-1991. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was laid on 19-3-1994. The Court returned the charge-sheet three times for compliance of certain objections. Finally the charge-sheet was presented on 6-8-1998 along with a petition covered by Criminal Misc. Petition No.1930 of 1998 under Section 473 read with Section 468 Cr.P.C. requesting to take the charge-sheet on file. The lower Court allowed the petition through the order dated 11-6-1999 by taking the charge-sheet on file after condoning the delay in representation.

(3.) The petitioners are the accused in C.C. No.107 of 1999. They are challenging the order of the lower Court in condoning the delay and taking cognizance of the offences against them. The petitioners are contending that though the charge-sheet was filed within the period of limitation, there was inordinate delay in re-presenting the same, and there was no proper explanation for the delay. The lower Court instead of considering whether there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay, took cognizance of the offences on the sole ground that the Electricity Board was put to huge loss to a tune of Rs.3,63,42,021/-, therefore, the delay must be condoned in the interest of justice, otherwise, the petitioners would go unpunished. The above observation made by the lower Court amounts to pre-judging the case against the petitioners. The lower Court ought to have observed that taking cognizance of the offence was beyond the period of limitation, and ought to have acquitted the petitioners. Since the case is pending for a long time, the Court ought to have refused to take cognizance of the offences.