http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: UCO BANK

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: IYENGAR CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1993

BENCH:

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                            ORDER The  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. In  any  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. It may 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.