SURAJMANI SRIMALI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against an order dated 10 -7 -79 passed by the Judicial Magistrate second class, Panposh refusing to drop the proceedings and discharge the accused in G. R. Case No. 710 of 1976.

(2.) ON 5 -6 -76, one Nityananda Mohapatra, who is a P. W. D. contractor, lodged a first information report before the Inspector of Police, Rourkela Section (Sector) - 10 Police Station, alleging that in the year 1973 he had incurred some loans from the accused (Petitioner here) on pledge of an Ambassador car, a Kirloskar 5 H. P. Pump -set and some gold ornaments weighing abou 2? tolas and that although he had repaid the entire loan with interest by May, 1975 the pledged articles were not returned to him and the accused was attempting to convert the same to his own use. The F. I. R. was endorsed by the Inspector of Police to Shri R. K. Mohapatra, Sub -Inspector of Police, who registered a case under Section 406, I. P. C. against the accused and took up investigation. After completion of investigation, he submitted a charge -sheet under Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Orissa (Schedule Area) Money -Lenders' Regulation, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulation'). The charge -sheet was received by the learned S. D. J. M., Panposh on 14.2.1977, when he took cognisance of the offences and directed issue of summons to the accused. The accused filed a petition on 26.3.1979 for dropping the criminal proceedings on the grounds that (1) there was no complaint in writing made by an Inspector appointed under Section 15, as required under Section 23 of the Regulation and (2) the court could not take cognisance of the offences after expiry of the period of limitation provided under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the petition holding that the prosecution had been launched by a competent person and that although the offences under Sections 18 and 21 were barred by limitation, the offence under Section 20 of the Regulation being a continuing offence it was not barred by limitation.

(3.) THE first contention is not acceptable in view of the fact that by Government Notification No. 13995 -STAT -12/74/IRW., dated the 6th June 1974 published in the Orissa Gazette, Part I, dated the 18th October, 1974, all the Sub -Inspectors of Police have been appointed to discharge the functions of the Inspector under Section 15 of the Regulation.