Delhi District Court
His Argument: Srinivas Pal vs . Union Territory Of Arunachal on 8 June, 2010
1
FIR No. 1213/03
PS: Sultan Puri
08.06.10
Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused on bail with Ld. Counsel Sh. R.K. Naveen. Cost of Rs. 300/ paid.
Arguments heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the chargesheet against the accused.
Ld. APP submitted that the chargesheet could not be filed within limitation period since concerned Investigating Officer was transferred from Police Station and due to heavy work load of put in Court cases with other Investigating Officer, the chargesheet could not be filed in time. He, further, submitted that even otherwise, interest of justice demanded to take cognizance in the present case since allegations against accused were serious i.e. he, being landlord of the impugned premises, did not take reasonable care that certain wires were not properly insulated in his premises despite the fact that the matter had allegedly been brought into his notice by the tenants several times; due to electrocution from such noninsulated wires, his tenant Dilip Dutta (deceased) died.
Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that chargesheet had been filed after lapse of long period, hence, cognizance of the offence could not be taken by the Court. He cited following precedent to support his argument: Srinivas Pal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1729.
Perusal of the record reveals that offence under Section 304 2 FIR No. 1213/03 PS: Sultan Puri A had been allegedly committed on 20.10.03, hence, considering Section 468 Cr.P.C., limitation period for filing the Chargesheet expired on 20.10.06. The chargesheet was filed on 30.09.09, hence, the charge sheet was filed after almost 3 years of lapse of limitation period.
Firstly, prosecution had tried to give an explanation for delay in filing the chargesheet. It is trite law that prosecution is not supposed to explain delay of each day. Further, the explanation given for delay in filing the chargesheet seems to be plausible. Even otherwise, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that one person lost his life due to alleged rash or negligent act of the accused, the accused cannot be discharged on technical grounds; it would be appropriate to decide the case on merits. Hence, it is in the interest of justice as well as to protect the interest of kins of deceased, the prosecution should be granted opportunity to prove the case on merits.
So far as precedent cited by Ld. Counsel for accused is concerned, facts and circumstances of the cited case are different form present facts and circumstances, hence, the cited precedent is not applicable.
Further, this Court is conscious of the observation of the Apex Court in Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, AIR 1999 SC 2071:
14. It may be noted here that Section 473 Cr.P.C.
which extends the period of limitation is in two parts. The first part contains non obstante clause and gives overriding effect to that section over Sections 468 to 472. The second part has two limbs. The first limb confers power on every competent court to take cognizance of an offence 3 FIR No. 1213/03 PS: Sultan Puri after the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and the second limb empowers such a court to take cognizance of an offence if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. It is true that the expression 'in the interest of justice' in Section 473 cannot be interpreted to mean in the interest of prosecution. What the Court has to see is 'interest of justice'. The interest of justice demands that the Court should protect the oppressed and punish the oppressor/offender. In complaints under Section 498A the wife will invariably be oppressed, having been subjected to cruelty by the husband and inlaws. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Courts, in case of delayed complaints, to construe liberally Section 473 Cr.P.C. in favour of a wife who is subjected to cruelty if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. When the conduct of the accused is such that applying rule of limitation will give an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation in the interests of justice. This is only illustrative not exhaustive.
Considering the mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, applying the rule of limitation will result in miscarriage of justice. With the above observations, application for condonation of delay in filing the chargesheet is allowed.
After perusal of the chargesheet and documents attached with it, I take cognizance of the offence.
4FIR No. 1213/03
PS: Sultan Puri Copies have already been supplied.
Put up for consideration of notice on 27.07.10.
(NAVEEN GUPTA) MM/ROHINI/DELHI 08.06.10.