Moti Lal and Another vs State

S.K. Jain, J.—For want of mandatory sanction by the District Magistrate for the prosecution of the Petitioners u/s 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur City refused to take cognizance vide his order dated 12.9.77. However he took cognizance of the offence u/s 114, D.I.R. An objection was raised on behalf of the accused that cognizance had been taken after lapse of the period of limitation. Two applications dated 11.9.79 and 12.9.79 were moved by the Assistant Public Prosecutor explaining the delay.

The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after being satisfied condoned the delay and directed that the charges u/s 114, D.I.R. be framed against the Petitioners. This order of October 30 1981 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur City is sought to be quashed u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case. Nowhere the Petitioners have stated as to how by condoning the delay the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had committed the abuse of process of the court or as to how in order to secure the ends of Justice it was necessary to set aside his order. It is not the case of Petitioners before this Court that the Magistrate had no power to condone the delay. He could certainly do it under the provisions of Section 473, Code of Criminal Procedure. That being so I do not find that the impugned order tantamounted to the abuse of the process of the court or that it was necessary to set it aside in order to secure the ends of justice.

As a sequel to the above discussion both the above applications filed by the applicants u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure are hereby dismissed.