IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3204 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.286/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: PPETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------------- D.SOOPPY, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA ABDUL RAHIMAN, DARKAS HOUSE, KANTHAL BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3204 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September 2008 O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner is that cognizance has been taken against him completely overlooking the fact that the prosecution is barred by limitation. 2. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. Report of the learned Magistrate shows that there is no speaking order condoning the delay even though a request was made to condone the delay. Request was made by the investigating officer to condone the delay. Report of the learned Magistrate further shows that no notice was given to the petitioner before considering the prayer for condonation of delay. 3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the question of limitation afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to raise his objections. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this plea though raised at the time of considering the question of framing charge was not considered by the learned Magistrate. Crl.M.C.No.3204/08 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner hence prays that the learned Magistrate may first be directed to consider the question of limitation and in case the question of limitation were found against the petitioner, the petitioner may be given a further opportunity to argue for discharge. I find merit in the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am satisfied that this Crl.M.C can in these circumstances be allowed. 5. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed in part. b) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the prayer for condonation of delay afresh after giving notice to the learned counsel for the petitioner. A speaking order shall be passed by the learned Magistrate after such consideration. c) If the learned Magistrate finds that delay is liable to be condoned, the learned Magistrate shall consider the question of framing charge afresh. The charge framed already is set aside. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3204/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3204/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008