IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY THURSDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2007 / 4TH SRAVANA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 7 of 2004(A) ----------------------------- CRRP.1/2000 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL KUMAR, VALLIKKADA, MURUPPEL HOUSE, NARANGANAM P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. MANOJ KUMAR, KALAYIL HOUSE, NARANGANAM P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: STATE/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINTS ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, C.B.C.I.D., KOTTAYAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY, J. ------------------------------- Criminal M.C.No.7 OF 2004 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2007 O R D E R On 25.5.1994, two Malayalam movie video cassettes were seized from the petitioners and the matter was transferred to C.B. C.I.D. Final report was filed only on 5.1.1999 after the delay of 20 months. Magistrate condoned the delay without hearing the petitioners and according to the petitioners there are no sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. From the order of the Magistrate revision application was filed before the Sessions Court. It was found that Magistrate took cognizance of the matter without giving notice regarding the condonation of delay to the petitioners and thereafter the following order was passed: “The revision petitioners shall be given sufficient opportunity for submitting all their objections against the delayed charge sheet. At the same time they will not be permitted to compute the period already elapsed after 5.1.1999. The investigating agency also shall be given an opportunity to submit any other explanation for the delay involved in filing 2 the charge sheet only on 5.1.1999. The trial court is hereby directed to consider the objections of both sides and hear both sides and pass a speaking order either refusing to take cognizance or to take cognizance of the offence as if the order is being passed by it on 5.1.1999. To meet the above ends the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 5.1.1999 as well as all subsequent orders passed in C.C.No.8/1999 including the impugned order are hereby set aside.” Therefore order taking cognizance was set aside. Now it is for the petitioners to take all the contentions before the Magistrate Court and only for valid circumstances, Magistrate can condone the delay and take cognizance. Since the matter is only remanded for consideration by the Magistrate, I see no ground to interfere in the impugned order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE prp 3 J.B.KOSHY -------------------------- Criminal.Appeal. OF 1998 4 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 14th March, 2007