HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10097 OF 2009 Date: 28-09-2010 Between: Y. Siva Prasad. --- Petitioner/Accused. And The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Balanagar Prohibition and Excise Station, Balanagar, Rangareddy District and The State of A. P., Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P., Hyderabad. --- Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10097 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968, in Crime No.909 of 2002 of Balanagar Prohibition and Excise Station. The offence was booked on 12-02-2002. The only contention urged by the petitioner’s counsel in this case is that the prosecution did not file charge sheet in this case till now and that return endorsement of copy application for charge sheet by the XII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Rangareddy District, shows that till 09-11-2009 no charge sheet was filed in this crime. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that even if the charge sheet is filed at this late stage, it would be barred by limitation as per Section 468 (2) (c) Cr.P.C., On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions stated that charge sheet in this crime was already filed on 16-06-2003 and that the accused has been absconding. Since charge sheet is stated to have been filed already, the petitioner’s contention cannot be accepted. Further, even if there is any delay in presenting or representing the charge sheet or in taking cognizance of the offence, the period of limitation can be extended as per Section 473 Cr.P.C. in case the Magistrate is satisfied on facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. 2) Jarnala Subbarayudu @ Yellaiah Vs. State of A.P.[1] of this Court has no application herein since the charge sheet is stated to have already been filed in this case. Further, in the reported decision, effect of Section 473 Cr.P.C is not considered. Perhaps as no such petition there under was filed in that case. 3) Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J. Date: 28-09-2010. DSH [1] 2002 (1) ALT 102