IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 763 of 2009() ------------------------------------ (STC CASE NO.3/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANDROTH, LAKSHADWEEP) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED SALEEM, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED PARAPET HOUSE, KAVARATTI,LAKSHADWEEP. 2. ISMAIL.K.C., S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KUNNASHADA HOUSE, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. 3. FAROOK, S/O. CHERUKUNHI, MASHAIKNAPURA HOUSE, KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. MR.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED: R2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAVARATTI POLICE STATION, LAKSHADWEEP. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 2/03/2009 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1160/09) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM ADDL.R2 BY ADV. MR. S.RADHAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.1072/2009 IN CRMC.NO.763/2009 DISMISSED 2/03/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 763 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the complaint against the petitioner in STC case No.3/08 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Androth, Lakshadweep. The facts of this case would reveal that an FIR was registered as early as on 15.3.2006 and a final report was filed only in 2008. The offence is punishable to a maximum period of one year and a police report is expected to be filed within one year. Here, admittedly the police charge is filed after one year. It is stated in the charge that the difficulty arose on account of some technical reasons. What is the technical reason is not mentioned in the petition. Unfortunately the Magistrate also did not apply his mind and he has taken cognizance of the case as a summary trial case. Under ordinary circumstances under the provisions of law when cognizance is taken the question of limitation cannot be considered for the reason one cannot go back. When CRL.M.C. 763 OF 2009 -:2:- such a situation arose this Court did have an opportunity to consider the said matter in the decision reported in Valsan v. State of Kerala (2003 (2) KLT 1050) where this Court held that, “In such cases, the exparte satisfaction entertained by the criminal Court to invoke its powers under S.473 of the Crl.P.C must certainly be held to be adhoc, subject to further consideration and confirmation/revocation at a later stage after giving an opportunity to the most affected party – the accused, to make his submissions on the relevant aspects. The mandate of the rule of natural justice that there must be a speaking order must certainly be complied with by a Court while choosing to invoke its powers under S.473 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Therefore I direct the learned Magistrate to consider the question of limitation afresh after hearing both sides and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The CRL.M.C. 763 OF 2009 -:3:- learned Magistrate has to dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks from today. Registry to send a copy of this order immediately. The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Hand over.