Sattar vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—By way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the prayer has been made to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of the complaint case No. 14 of 2007 State v. Sattar and Ors. launched for the offence of Sections 27, 29, 31 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

Having heard the learned Counsel of the Petitioner, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 4.4.2004. Narrating the same in the form of complaint to the superior officers, the Forest Guard Jagdish Singh apprised the details of the occurrence on the same day. The facts are that Petitioner along with his companions Kurban and Gulfam entered into the restricted area of Rajaji National Park having axe in their hands. They were cutting some trees of ''KHAIR'' and ''SHEESHAM'' in order to strive to commit theft of the same from the restricted area. They were raided by the forest guard Jagdish Singh. Accused persons, on hearing the voice of forest guard, ran away from the spot, hence, the report was submitted by forest guard Jagdish Singh to his superiors.

The matter was enquired by some superior official and the enquiry report dated 5.4.2004 was submitted in affirmative. That enquiry report remained pending in the concerned office for more than three years till 23.4.2007, when it was submitted to the concerning court of Addl. CJM, Haridwar along with an application for condonation of delay. However, no specific reason was mentioned as to how the delay was caused in submitting the chargesheet to the Court.

Learned Counsel of the Petitioner has argued that the Court, on the same day, i.e. on 23.4.2007, passed the order of cognizance, issuing summons to the accused persons, without making any order whether it considered the delay condonation application favourably to the Forest Department. It was further argued that out of all the Sections, which find mention in the chargesheet, only Section 51 is a penal one envisaging the maximum punishment of three years for the offence complained of, and this period of three years will be reckoned since the date of commission of crime or detection of the same, and that date is 4.4.2004. This way, the maximum period of limitation could be availed by Forest Department to file the chargesheet was up to 3.4.2007. It is obvious that the chargesheet was filed 20 days late wherefore no explanation has been rendered by the Forest Department, much less any reason stated by the Court condoning the delay and then taking the cognizance in the matter. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of " State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutt and Another, , wherein it was held as under: -

Section 473 confers power on the Court taking cognizance after the expiry of 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 that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. Obviously, therefore in respect of the offences for which a period of limitation has been provided in Section 468, the power has been conferred on the Court taking cognizance to extend the said period of limitation where a proper and satisfactory explanation of the delay is available and where the Court taking cognizance finds that it would be in the interest of justice. This discretion conferred on the Court has to be exercised judicially and on well recognised principles. This being a discretion conferred on the Court taking cognizance, where-ever the Court exercises this discretion, the same must be by a speaking order, indicating the satisfaction of the Court that the delay was satisfactorily explained and condonation of the same was in the interest of justice. In the absence of a positive order to that effect it may not be permissible for a superior Court to come to the conclusion that the Court must be deemed to have taken cognizance by condoning the delay whenever the cognizance was barred and yet the Court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial of the offence.

This Court is of the view that the Forest Department did not submit any reason for its lethargic attitude in submitting the chargesheet out of the period of limitation and the learned Magistrate also could not pay his attention to the application dated 23.4.2007 moved by the Forest Department for the condonation of delay, much less allowing the same after recording his satisfaction for some cogent and speaking reasons.

In view of the above, this petition has force, which is liable to be allowed. It is allowed. Impugned order of cognizance dated 23.4.2007 as well as the impugned chargesheet, so far as it relates to the Petitioner, are hereby quashed.