ISHWARLAL DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. By this application, the applicants have challenged the order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Seoni Malwa (Shri Pankaj Yadav) in Criminal Case No.317/1999 by which the application of the applicants under Sections 212 and 219 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that initially charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 409, 419/34, 420/34, 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants for the period 3.9.1993 to 31.12.1993 and 1.1.1994 to 12.12.1994. The order relating to framing of charges was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No.1294/2000 and this Court vide order dated 16.11.2000 has directed that the applicants shall move an application under Sections 212 and 219 of Cr.P.C. and learned Magistrate shall consider the framing of charges accordingly, and therefore application under Sections 212 and 219 of Cr.P.C. was moved before the trial Court and the trial Court dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 4.3.2011.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that it is apparent from the memo of charge that charges are framed for the period 3.9.1993 to 31.12.1993 and 1.1.1994 to 12.12.1994. According to the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C., three incidents of similar nature can be included in a case within a year, but looking to these two incidents, the entire period goes away from one year, and therefore the overt-acts done by the applicants for different period, trial cannot be done simultaneously. Similarly, attention of this Court is invited to the provisions of Section 212(2) of Cr.P.C. in which it was mentioned that charges for such offences shall be framed according to the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and time between the first date and last date as mentioned in the charge sheet shall not exceed one year. In the present case, first date is 3.9.1993 and last date is 12.12.1994, and therefore learned Magistrate did not comply the order dated 16.11.2000 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.1294/2000 in a proper manner. LEARNED counsel for the State opposes the application. He submits that the learned JMFC has rejected the application on the basis of provisions of Section 220 (2) of Cr.P.C., and therefore the order passed by the learned JMFC appears to be correct.

(3.) A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for information and compliance.