Bank Vs. Iyengar Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.  INSC 389 (28 September
appellant his been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to
three years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default to undergo six months'
RI. He was found in possession 23 kgs of opium. In the appeal 399 before the
High Court the only question raised was that though Occurrence took place on 31-5-1974 challan was filed on 29-8-1977, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken in view of
Section 468 CrPC. The High Court has considered this aspect and after referring
to Section 473 CrPC held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the
court can take cognizance if the delay has been properly explained or that it
is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.
event in this case an application was filed for condoning the delay and also
explaining the delay at a later stage. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant such an application was filed only after almost at the time of
conclusion of trial and before judgment was delivered.
be noted Section 473 CrPC does not in any clear terms lay down that the
application should be filed at the time of filing a challan itself. The words
"so to do in the interest of justice" are wide enough and the court
accepted the explanation. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.