JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 1.3.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur Case No. 73/2007 whereby charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner with an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay. 2. The short facts of the case are that an FIR No. 135/87 was filed in Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on 16.6.87 under Sections 337, 338 and 304A IPC against the present petitioners and other persons. On 19.2.2007 challan was filed against the present petitioners along with others with an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for condonation of delay. The application was objected by the petitioners that the limitation prescribed for the offence is three years from the date of incident and it expires on 16.6.1990 while the challan has been filed after delay of almost 16 and half years. The Public Prosecutor has objected on the ground that time has lapsed due to sending the matter for prosecution sanction but to prosecute the present petitioners no sanction was required and hence the matter is hopelessly barred and abuse of process, the court below has not considered the facts and revision has also been dismissed illegally, hence this petition. 3. The only contention of the petitioners is that after delay of 16 and half years cognizance could not have been taken looking to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. The Public Prosecutor has submitted that the court below was justified in condoning the delay. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the orders impugned as well as the copy of application for condonation of delay filed before the court below. 5. It is not in dispute that incident has taken place on 16.6.87 and as per Annex.1 application for condonation of delay, charge-sheet was prepared on 18.12.92 but same was not filed before the court below and reason has been assigned that prosecution sanction was not accorded. Admittedly, no prosecution sanction was needed to charge-sheeted the present petitioners but no charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners. Annex.1 speaks itself that charge-sheet was prepared on 18.12.92 but for prosecution sanction it was sent to the concerned Department on 24.4.1993 thereafter file was received back on 30.12.2004 without any final decision on the point of sanction. Admittedly, no prosecution sanction was needed to charge-sheeted the present petitioners but no charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners. Annex.1 speaks itself that charge-sheet was prepared on 18.12.92 but for prosecution sanction it was sent to the concerned Department on 24.4.1993 thereafter file was received back on 30.12.2004 without any final decision on the point of sanction. Thereafter, an additional charge-sheet was prepared on 16.1.2007 and submitted to the Court with the application for condonation of delay. 6. A bare perusal of the above facts speak inaction on the part of Investigation Agency as well as authorities who are responsible to accord sanction. A detail list has also been submitted in Annex.1 with whom the file remained pending from 16.6.1987 to 2007. 7. The contention of the present petitioner is that after 16 years, the cognizance is bad in view of the provisions of Section 468 and reliance has been placed on Kuldeep Singh & ors. v. State & Anr., 1999 Cr.L.J. 193 . Further reliance has been placed on Bhanwar Lal v. State, (1991) 1 RLW 86 . Reliance has also been placed on Pradeep & ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2005 Cr.L.J. 1056 wherein it was held: "Having perused the impugned order and the relevant record, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has committed error in condoning the delay without there being good and sufficient reasons. No useful purpose is going to be served by putting the petitioners to trial for the incidents which alleged to have taken place more than 15 years back. The condonation of delay in such a light hearted manner is bound to frustrate the very purpose of providing limitation for trying the offence of trivial nature. Continuing proceedings in such matter tantamounts to abuse of process of the Court." 8. In Srinivas Pal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (Now State), AIR 1988 SC 1729 , it has been held: "Quick justice is a sine qua nun of Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 91/2 years without any cause at all and none was indicated before the learned Magistrate or before the High Court or before us, cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 91/2 years without any cause at all and none was indicated before the learned Magistrate or before the High Court or before us, cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, it is just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prosecution of the appellant to proceed no further. We do so accordingly." Reliance has also been placed on Ramesh Chandra Sinha & ors. v. State of Bihar & ors., (2003) 7 SCC 254 ; Dara Singh & ors. v. State of Raj., 2005 (4) RDD 789 (Raj.) .In Dr. Dalpat Singh v. State of Raj., 1989 WLN UC 324 , it has been held: "For condoning the delay, in taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation, no separate application is necessary but the delay must be explained either in the challan or by filing a separate application supported by affidavit. If cognizance has to be taken after the expiry of the period of limitation, the accused has to be given a notice and it is only after the hearing him, that cognizance can be taken and in doing so, the Court has to record its satisfaction that on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case, the delay has been properly explained or it has been to record its satisfaction that condo-nation of delay is necessary in the interest of justice. Unless either these two things are done, it cannot be presumed that the Court which has taken cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation has ipso-facto exercised its powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. and has condoned the delay. More ever the Court cannot subsequent to the passing of the order of taking cognizance can condone the delay or extend the period of limitation." 9. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has relied upon Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762 : 2007 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 571 where cognizance has been taken on a complaint and it was held that complaint was filed within a period of three days from the date of alleged offence and if cognizance has been taken after expiry of period of limitation, the complaint must be held to be filed within the period of limitation. 571 where cognizance has been taken on a complaint and it was held that complaint was filed within a period of three days from the date of alleged offence and if cognizance has been taken after expiry of period of limitation, the complaint must be held to be filed within the period of limitation. But here in the present case, police has filed challan after delay of 16 years and 6 months.Annex.1 application for condonation of delay also reveals another sorry state of affairs that for the incident of 16.6.87 charge-sheet was prepared on 18.12.92 meaning thereby after 5 and half years and explanation for the same has not been narrated in the application, charge sheet was prepared after expiry of limitation period which was admittedly expired on 16.6.90.In view of the above, the cognizance which has been taken after delay of 16 years is bad in law and liable to be quashed.In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 1.3.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur Case No. 73/2007 and order dated 5.8.2008 in revision No. 21/2008 by Addl. District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur are quashed and set aside qua the petitioners.Before parting, the court cannot shut the eyes on the inaction and inadvertence of the Investigating Agency as well as officers responsible for awarding prosecution sanction, hence a copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police, as well as Director, Local-Self Department to initiate appropriate disciplinary inquiry against the erring officers who kept pended the investigation and not opted to file the charge-sheet before the Court and against the erring officers who kept pending the consideration for prosecution sanction and result of the same be intimated to this office within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Put up on 3.3.2014 for seeing compliance of aforesaid order.Petition Allowed - Action against erring Police Officers suggested - Compliance report to be filed upto 3.3.2014. *******