Kerala High Court
Anu Sahad vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943
CRL.MC NO. 1782 OF 2021
CRIME NO.1778/2013 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 8/2021 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 ANU SAHAD
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, CHOLAKKAL HOUSE, THAMBURATTIKALLU,
MUNDERI P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 334.
2 AMJAD KHAN
AGED 24 YEARS
S/O.RASAQ, KADUKAPALIL HOUSE, THAMBURATTIKALLU,
MUNDERI P.O., NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 334.
BY ADVS.
SHRIGEORGE MATHEW
SHRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SHRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
SHRI.STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
2
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 031,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH-SR.PP
OTHER PRESENT:
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2021, THE COURT ON 05.08.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
3
O R D E R
Dated this the 5th day of August 2021
The petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.8/2021
pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-III (Juvenile Justice Board), Ernakulam arising from
out of Crime No.1778/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police
Station for having allegedly committed an offence
punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the
I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
21.08.2013 the petitioners in furtherance of common
intention committed theft of a motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KL-07-AW-7874 parked at the Marine Drive,
Ernakulam. In consequence of that, the crime was
registered on 27.08.2013 initially under Sections 41(1)(d)
and 102 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners were arrested and,
being juvenile in conflict with law, produced before the
Individual Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (for short
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
"Board") and released on bail. No investigation was
thereafter conducted for an unexplained period of eight
years. The petitioners are not involved in any other
crime. They have to look out for jobs and even intend to
go abroad to eke out a living, after obtaining a passport.
Because of this criminal case pending against them, they
are not in a position to apply for a passport. The final
report was filed after the petitioners had approached this
Court in Crl.M.C.No.265/2021 challenging Annexure A1
F.I.R. The M.C. was closed on the basis of the report
filed by the investigating officer that the final report
has already been filed. It is submitted that there is an
unreasonable delay in filing the final report. Under Rule
10(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016 (for short "Model Rules"), in
cases of petty or serious offences, the final report shall
be filed before the Board at the earliest and in any case
not beyond the period of two months from the date of
information to the police, except in those cases where it
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
was not reasonably known that the person involved in the
offence was a child, in which case extension of time may be
granted by the Board for filing the final report. In the
instant case, the petitioners were known to be juvenile in
conflict with law. Yet there was unexplained delay in
filing the final report and no extension has been granted
by the Board, and therefore, it is prayed that the entire
proceedings in the above crime may be quashed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Annexure A1 F.I.R. was registered on 27.08.2013 and
in that the petitioners name got mentioned as offenders,
when they were both aged only 17. Hence, it is clear that
the investigating officer was aware of the fact that the
petitioners were juveniles. The final report at Annexure
A2 was prepared on 05.09.2013. A report was called for
from the Principal Magistrate/JJB Ernakulam and it was
submitted that the F.I.R. in the crime was received on
28.09.2013 and the charge sheet was produced before the
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
court only on 15.02.2021, which itself was defective.
After curing the defects pointed out, it was resubmitted on
23.02.2021 and taken on file as C.C.No.8/2021 on
24.02.2021. The Station House Officer has also filed a
report before this Court, through the Government
Prosecutor, in which it is stated that the crime was
originally registered as Crime No.1494/2013 at the North
Paravoor Police Station and was transferred to the Central
Police Station and re-registered as Crime No.1778/2013 and
after investigation, the then investigating officer has
prepared the charge sheet on 05.09.2013. The Ernakulam
Central Police Station being one of the heaviest police
stations in the State of Kerala, having an average of 3500
cases registered every year, and in the midst of heavy work
and law and order duty, the C.D. files of the crime were
misplaced in the police station for a long period of time,
and ultimately, the charge sheet was laid before the JJB on
12.02.2021. This explanation given by the S.H.O. is not
acceptable. Even under the provisions of Section 468 of
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
the Cr.P.C., there is a specific bar for taking cognizance
after the lapse of the period of limitation. It
specifically states that no court shall take cognizance of
the offence after the expiry of the period of limitation.
5. Under Section 468(2)(c) of the Cr.P.C., the period
of limitation is three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years. Section 469 clarifies that the
period of limitation in relation to an offender shall
commence on the date of the offence or where the commission
of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the
offence or to any police officer, the first day on which
such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to
any police officer, whichever is earlier. In the instant
case, F.I.R. was registered on 27.08.2013 and hence the
time begins to run from that date and being an offence
under Section 379, the maximum punishment is three years
imprisonment and hence under Section 468(2)(c) read with
Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules, the Magistrate was not
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
empowered to take cognizance of the offence. Hence, the
Crl.M.C. is allowed and the entire proceedings in Crime
No.1778/2013 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, now
pending as C.C.No.8/2021 on the files of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court-III (Juvenile Justice Board),
Ernakulam, shall stand quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and the petitioners/juveniles in conflict with law are
discharged and set at liberty.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
dkr
Crl.M.C. No.1782 of 2021
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1782/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR)
DTD. 27/08/2013 IN CR.NO.1778 OF 2013 OF
CENTRAL POLICE STATION OF ERNAKULAM CITY.
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CR.NO.1778
OF 2013 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION OF ERNAKULAM
CITY.
