Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
(SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Verma)
MCRC No.2094/2015
Chandan S/o Kundan Lal Jaiswal and another
Vs.
State of MP
__________________________________________
Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the applicants.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned government counsel for the
respondent/State.
__________________________________________
ORDER
(Passed on this 18thday of September, 2015) This application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, District - Mandsaur in CRR No.114/2014 dated 13.01.2015 which was in its turn, directed against the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur, District - Mandsaur in Criminal Case No.2045/2014 dated 09.07.2014 by which, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 34(2) of MP Excise Act against the present applicants.
2. The short point involved in this case is whether, before filing of charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur, the prosecution complied with the provisions of section 61(2) of MP Excise Act and the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. Section 61(2) of MP Excise Act prescribed that 2 without sanction of the State Government, no Judicial Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, or any rule or order thereunder, unless the prosecution is instituted within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
4. In this case, charge-sheet was filed on 09.07.2014. However, it is alleged by the present applicants that it was filed after lapse of six months and, therefore, no cognizance could be taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
5. The order-sheet dated 09.07.2014 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that on that date, present applicants remained absent before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. An application was filed for exemption from their personal appearance, which was duly allowed. No objection was raised on that date.
6. Subsequently, the revision was filed in which the revisional court took a view that in revisional jurisdiction, interference can only be made in those orders which were passed on merit after hearing both the parties. Since the impugned order was not passed on merit after hearing both the parties, no interference can be made.
7. Counsel for the applicants submits that there was no need to take any objection before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He was under the obligation not to take cognizance, when the charge-sheet was filed after lapse of six months.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it was duty 3 of the present applicants to bring in the knowledge of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date, when the charge- sheet was being filed after lapse of six months and instead of that, they chose to remain absent. No objection was raised by their counsel and in this view of the matter, the order passed by learned revisional court appears to be in accordance with law and no illegality committed by him. However, in this application filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., it appears proper to give an opportunity to the applicants to raise their objection before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
9. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.07.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur and also the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in CRR No.114/2014 dated 13.01.2015 are set aside. Present applicants are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15.10.2015 and raise their objections.
10. With these observations and direction, the application stands disposed of.
C.c as per rules.
(Alok Verma) Judge Kratika/-