Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 994 (MP)

Chandan v. State of M. P.

2015-09-18

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This application under section 482 of CrPC is directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, District - Mandsaur in CRR No.114/2014 dated 13.1.2015 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 9.7.2014 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 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 9.7.2014. 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 9.7.2014 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 of the present applicants to bring in the knowledge of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date, when the chargesheet was being filed after lapse of six months and instead of that, they chose to remain absent. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, it was duty of the present applicants to bring in the knowledge of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the date, when the chargesheet 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 CrPC, 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 9.7.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur and also the order passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No.114/2014 dated 13.1.2015 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.