IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 335 of 2008() ------------------------ CC.206/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. PADMANABHAN, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN, POLEPADY HOUSE URUVACHAL P.O., PAZASSI AMSOM KARATTA DESOM, MATTANNUR VIA 2. SANDEEP.A.P., S/O.POLEPADY PADMABHAN URUVACHAL P.O.,MATTANNUR . BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, BEGUR RANGE MANANTHAVADY 2. STATE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== CRL.M.C. No. 335 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008. O R D E R The petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No. 206/2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady for offences punishable under Sections 9 and 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in respect of an occurrence which took place on 03.06.2001, challenge the cognizance taken by the court below on the ground that the cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation and without condoning the delay. 2. The remarks of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady was called for by this Court. As per report dated 05.02.2008 sent by the learned Magistrate the following details are discernible:- The occurrence was on 03.06.2001. The period of limitation for the offences would expire on 03.06.2004. The complaint was filed before the court on 08.06.2007. The complaint was not accompanied by any petition to condone the delay and cognizance was taken on 12.06.2007 without condoning the CRL. M.C.NO. 335/2008 : 2 : delay and the learned Magistrate had failed to notice the fact that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and without any petition to condone the delay. 3. The cognizance taken was accordingly bad. Before taking cognizance of the offence, the learned Magistrate should have insisted on the complainant to file a petition to condone the delay and ought to have issued notice to the accused on such petition. That has not been done. Hence, the cognizance taken in C.C. No. 206/2007 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration. It shall be open to the Forest Range Officer, Begur Range to file an application to condone the delay and the accused shall be given an opportunity to contest the petition to condone the delay and it is only after the delay is condoned that the Magistrate will be justified in taking cognizance of the offence. (Vide 1995 SC 231-State of Maharashtra v. Sharadchandra Vinayaka Dongre) V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL. M.C.NO. 335/2008 : 3 :