JOHARI CHAND AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 303/81 and other connected misc. petitions given in Schedule 'A' and 'B' The facts of the present case and the other cases mentioned in schedule 'A and 'B are the same and the paints involved are identical except that in the present case and the cases given in schedule A complaints were filed on Sept. 28, 1981 and in the cases given in schedule 'B' complaints were filed on Feb. 18, 1982. In the present case and the cases given in schedule 'A cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and in the cases mentioned in schedule 'B cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner.

(2.) It will suffice to give facts of case No. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 303/81. One Gopiram filed an application before the City Magistrate, Bikaner where in it was mentioned that the petitioners have constructed about 80 shops on K.E.M. Road, Bikaner and some of the shops are lying vacant. He prayed that a shop out of these, which are lying vacant may be allotted to him. A notice was given by the City Magistrate to the petitioners under Sec. 17 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act hereafter), informing that premises are required by Gopiram and that they should appear before him on Sept. 15, 1980 and show cause against the letting of the premises to said Shri Gopi Ram. Reply to the notice was tiled wherein a plea was taken that shops have been constructed for specified individuals after entering into agreements with them and have been let out to them. The relevant material was also submitted with the reply. It appears that on a complaint made by Gopiram, the City Magistrate, appointed an advocate as Commissioner, to go to the spot and inspect the site. The Commissioner inspected the site and gave his report on May 16, 1981 wherein it was given out that except shops no. 21 to 29, 31, 33 to 45 which were lying vacant all shops were in possession of the tenants. The City Magistrate moved to the District Magistrate for sanction and the sanction was given to the City Magistrate by the District Magistrate on July 27, 1981. The complaint was thereafter filed on Sept. 28, 1981. It appears that an application was moved for sanction on Aug. 19, 1981 and the sanction was received on July 27, 1981 in the present case and those entitled in schedule 'A' and in cases entered in schedule 'B' on Jan. 20, 1982. After the sanction was received as already stated above complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence and issued process in all the cases.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Act itself is a complete Code and even prescribes the period of limitation of three months from the commission of the offence within which the complaint had to be filed upon which the court could try the case. He submits that even from the allegations as given in the complaint and the undisputed facts, the complaint had been filed after the prescribed period of limitation and as such the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under section 23 of the Act and it amount to abuse of the process of the court if the trial is allowed to continue. It will cause harassment to the accused petitioner.