ORDER Shiv Dayal, J. This is a reference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recommending that the prosecution against the Petitioner he quashed. A complaint was filed before the Municipal Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior alleging that on October 12, 1957 at 10-30 a. m when the Inspector of Shops and Establishments was on a round, he found that the accused Kotumal had altered the name of his business which was contrary to the licence and he had also altered the constitution of the firm. On these grounds it was alleged that he committed an offence under Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act. When the complainant Ramchandra Rao was examined he stated that the change had been effected 6 months before the complaint. On this a preliminary objection was raised that the complaint could not proceed because of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the said Act. The objection was overruled by the trial Magistrate, but it has found favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The only question to be considered today is whether the prosecution in the present case is barred by Section 55 of the Madhya Bharat Shops and Establishments Act. My answer is in the affirmative. Section 55 reads thus: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made therein, unless a complaint thereof is made within 3 months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The view of the trial Magistrate is that the starting point of time under Section 55 is the date on which the offence is discovered and alleged by the complainant. In my opinion this interpretation is not sound and it does not accord with the language of the section. The expression "the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed" refers not to the date of making the allegation, but to the date on which the offence (regarding which there is the allegation that it was committed) was committed. To put it differently, the phrase "alleged to have been committed" qualifies 'offence' and not 'date'. In this view of the matter a complaint has to be filed within 3 months of the date of the commission of the offence which is alleged to have been committed. To put it differently, the phrase "alleged to have been committed" qualifies 'offence' and not 'date'. In this view of the matter a complaint has to be filed within 3 months of the date of the commission of the offence which is alleged to have been committed. The date on which the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the complainant or the date on which he filed the complaint or made the allegation against the offender is not relevant. It is not usual to prescribe any time limit for launching prosecution for an offence but, when the Legislature has prescribed a time limit in the present case, the provision has to be construed as any provision of a statute of limitation. The learned trial Magistrate has endeavoured to reason that the time limit fixed under Section 55 should really commence on the date on which the offence comes to the knowledge of a competent officer. The argument is that if an act which amounts to an offence is committed not in an open manner but is kept concealed, it will be unjust that the offender should escape punishment. The argument appears to be attractive at first but on a little reflection it becomes clearly untenable. In the first place such an argument is not permissible while interpreting a provision which prescribes limitation. It is not for the Court to sit in judgment on the wisdom of the Legislature in prescribing a time limit for prosecution under a special Act. Secondly, it would have been a different matter had fraud been alleged and the principle or provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act had been invoked. It is unnecessary to consider in this case whether Section 18 will be applicable or not because no such case was pleaded on behalf of the prosecution at any stage, not even before me. Here it was the complainant himself who admitted, during the course of his statement before the trial Magistrate, that the offence had been committed 6 months before he complained of it. For these reasons the reference is accepted and the trial in the Court of the Municipal Magistrate is quashed.