KALPNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two application, common question of law has been raised by the petitioners and, therefore, these cases are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN Cr. Misc No. 21353 of 1998. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.8.1998 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pakur, in G.R. No. 107 of 1995, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 134 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In Cr. Misc. No. 24561 of 1998, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Gaya, in Tr. No. 768 of 1998, whereby he taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) ARGUMENT advanced by he learned Counsel for the parties is that the impugned order of cognizance Is bad in law Inasmuch as it is barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that while taking cognizance the learned Court below condone the delay in a very mechanical manner without giving any satisfactory explanation. It Is contended that the Court below has no Jurisdiction to condone the delay without giving notice and without hearing the petitioners. Learned Counsel further contended that the Courts below have failed to comply the mandatory requirement of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection learned Counsel relied upon a decision or this Court in the case of Pawan Marroo @ Pawan Kumar Maroo v. State of Bihar 1998 (1) BLJ 202.