STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK DONGRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 378 · Decided: 07-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
SHARADCHANDRA VINA YAK DONGRA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 7, 1994 
[R.M. SAHA!, DR. AS. ANAND AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
Sections 173(2) and 190(J)(bf-Charge-sheets filed-Cognizance 
C taken-Tune sought by prosecution to make further investigation and to 
collect further additional evidence and to file additional charge-sheet-No 
order passed on the application--Whether charge-sheet incomplete-Whether 
cognizance taken was valid-Delay in filing the charge-sheel-Condonation 
without notice to the other side-Validity of 
D 
E 
Raids were conducted at the office of the respondents on 4th and 5th 
October, 1985 on the ground that offences bad been committed by them 
relating to manufacture and sale of beer without payment of Excise Duty. 
On 22nd November, 1985 cases were registered against them under various 
provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. 
After investigation, charge-sheets were filed on 21st November, 1986 
before the Cider Judicial Magistrate. The prosecution also filed two ap· 
plications, one for condonation of delay, if any, and another seeking 
permission to make further investigation and collect further additional 
F 
evidence In respect of the offence and to file an additional charge-sheet 
within six months from the date of the application. On 21st November, 
1986 the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and 
issued process against the respondents. On the same day, the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate allowed the application for condonation or delay. The 
G respondents challenged the said order before the High Conrt. Holding that 
no reasons were recorded and no opportunity was afforded to the respon-
dents, though the CJM was aware that the charge-sheet was incomplete, 
the High Court quashed the proceedings. 
Against the said order of the High Court, the Stl\te Govt. preferred 
H the present appeals. 
378 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. S.V. DONGRA 
379 
Partly allowing appeals, this Court 
A 
HELD : 1. The High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the 
delay, if any, for launching the prosecution, could not have been condoned 
without notice to the respondents and behind their back and without 
recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. However, having come B 
to that conclusion, it would have been appropriate for the High Court, 
without going into .the merits of the case, to have remitted the case to the 
Trial Court, with a direction to decide the application for condonation or 
delay afresh after bearing both sides. The High Court however, did not 
adopt that course and proceeded further to hold that the Trial Court could 
not have taken cognizance of the offence in view of the application filed by C 
the prosecution seeking permission of the Court to file a "supplementary 
charge-sheet" on the basis or an 'incomplete charge-sheet' and quashed the 
order of the CJM dated 21.11.1986 on this ground also. This view of the 
High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case Is patently er· 
roneous. [382-F-H] 
D 
2.1. If the police report and the material filed therewith are sufficie'!t 
to satisfy the Magistrate that he should take cognizance, his power is not 
fettered by the label which the investigating agency chooses to give to the 
report submitted by it under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Merely, because the 
prosecution had filed an application, after submission of the charge-sheet, 
E 
seeking permission to file "supplementary charge-sheet", it could not affect 
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance, if he was otherwise 
satisfied from the material already placed before him alongwith the 
charge-sheet that cognizance of the offence was required to be taken. It is 
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and Magistrate alone to decide whether 
the material placed by the prosecution with the report (charge sheet) is 
sufficient to take cognizance or not. The power of the Magistrate to take 
cognizance cannot be controlled by the investigating agency, whose duty is 
only to investigate and place the facts and the evidence before the 
Magistrate. [383-G·H, 384-A-B) 
F 
G 
2.2. In the instant case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was obviously 
satisfied with the sufficiency of the material placed by the prosecution 
before him with the report for taking cognizance of the offence and be, 
therefore, proceeded further after taking cognizance and directed the 
issuance of process against the respondents. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.