377 - What is the reason for delay in filing Chargesheet?

#delay #filing #chargesheet

Video Credits
Video by adege from Pixabay license.
https://pixabay.com/videos/light-trac...
Music License from Kinemaster - Family Day

Supreme Court of India
State Of Maharashtra vs Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre on 7 October, 1994

3. After the registration of the cases against the respondents investigation was carried out and on 21-11-1986, five charge-sheets were filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara. Simultaneously, the prosecution also filed two applications before the CJM. In the first application, it was stated that though the nature of the offence was a continuing one and therefore there was no delay in filing the charge-sheet but if for any technical reason it appeared to the court that there was some delay in filing the same then, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the delay may kindly be condoned. In the second application, the prosecution inter alia stated that the bulk of the evidence had been recorded and filed along with the charge-sheet, some evidence against some of the accused persons, who had not been sent up for trial, was yet to be collected and therefore permission was sought to make "further investigation" and collect further additional evidence in respect of the offence and to file an "additional charge-sheet" within six months from the date of the application. On 21-11-1986, the CJM took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the respondents. While the second application was kept pending for orders, the application for condonation of delay was allowed on 21- 11-1986 itself. The respondent challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21-11-1986 in the High Court and sought quashing of the same in exercise of the inherent powers to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The case of the respondents before the High Court was that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not have condoned the delay in launching the prosecution without notice to the respondents and permitting them to have their say. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 21-11-1986 was also assailed on the ground that the court could not take cognizance of the offence on an "incomplete police report" and therefore, it had no jurisdiction to issue the process against the respondents.


4. The High Court found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 21-11-1986, had allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the charge-sheet, without recording any reasons and without hearing the respondents and behind their back. The High Court further found that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was aware from the application filed by the prosecution that the charge-sheet was 'incomplete' and as such, it could not have taken cognizance of the offence and it had no jurisdiction to issue the process against the respondents. The proceedings, including the issuance of process, were accordingly quashed.