IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3602 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 106.2009 IN CMP NO.1989/2003 IN C.C.NO.348/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM-II, HOSDURG REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- GEORGE KUTTY, S/O.THOMAS, NJALLANIYIL HOUSE, ANAKKALLU, KANHIRAPPALLI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SEENAMOL, PUNNALAKKATTIL HOUSE, ADUKKALAKANDAM P.O., NATTAKKAL P.O., HOSDURG. 2. STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSESCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN ADV.SMT.G.KRISHNAKUMARI FOR RI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.3602 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21 st day of January, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner, who is the accused in C.C.No.348 of 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M-II, Hosdurg, challenges the order dated 10.6.2009 in C.M.P.No.1989 of 2008 as per which he sought his discharge on the ground that cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation. 2. The case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows:- The revision petitioner who was the neighbour of the de-facto complainant Seena Thomas got acquainted with her and offered to marry her. On the promise to marry her he had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions and when the lady became pregnant the revision petitioner made himself scarce by escaping to his native place at Kanjirappally in Kottayam district. The revision petitioner has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC. Crl.R.P. No. 3602 of 2009 2 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence beyond the period of one year prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. After the appearance of the revision petitioner/accused, he was supplied with the copy of the prosecution records and a charge was framed against him . He pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court for the aforementioned offence and the case was posted for prosecution evidence. It was at that stage that the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1989/80 in C.C.No.348/2006 under Section 239 r/w 245(2) Cr.P.C to discharge him on the ground that the cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation. 4. The court below after narrating the facts of the case took notice of the fact that eventhough the cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation by the predecessor in the office of the Magistrate, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed earlier in the order, held that this was a fit case where the delay has to be condoned in the interest of justice, in view of the latter part of Section 473 Cr.P.C. Crl.R.P. No. 3602 of 2009 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on decision State of Himachal Pradesh v.Tara Dutt and another ( AIR 2000 SC 297) to contend for the position that the court below was not right in condoning the delay in the interests of justice without giving reasons to condone the delay. 6. I cannot agree. The court below has given the reasons in the previous paragraphs where the facts of the case have been narrated. That, according to me, will constitute the reasons to condone the delay in the interests of justice. The court had the power to invoke the latter part of Section 473 Cr.P.C and condone the delay in the interests of justice. It was a proper exercise of discretion. If the delay was not condoned justice would have been the first casualty. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. This Revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 21 st day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj