Judgment Paul, J. In this criminal revision, the convictions of the revision petitioner for offences under sections 3 and 7 read with section 56 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act have been challenged. One of the grounds on which such a challenge has been made is that the filing of the complaint itself is barred by reason of section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, and as such the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence. 2. Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, states that (1) except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation, and (2) the period of limitation shall be (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Section 469 which deals with the commencement of the period of limitation states: (1) the period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence ( a) on the date of the offence: (b) 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 an offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. 3. In the case now before me the complaint itself mentions, that the offence was brought to the notice of the department only on 19th July, 1976. It might be noted that the complaint was filed on 4th January, 1977 even though the offence was committed in March, 1975. The prosecution relies therefore on section 469 (1) (b) for saving limitation. Section 469 (1) (b) could be invoked by the prosecution only where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer. The prosecution relies therefore on section 469 (1) (b) for saving limitation. Section 469 (1) (b) could be invoked by the prosecution only where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer. Natarajan,J., has in Sulochana v. State, Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Madras held that the Registrar of Chit Funds cannot be taken to be a person aggrieved by the offences so as to claim the benefit of extended limitation provided under section 469 (1) (b) and (c) Criminal Procedure Code. He has observed that: “the Registrar has come forward with the complaint in performance of his official duty and not on account of any grievance felt or sustained by him personally in the contraventions committed by the petitioner. The complaints preferred in discharge of one's official duty are vastly different in character and nature from complaints preferred by persons aggrieved by commission of the offence. They distinctly fall in two different categories and the former is not to be confused with the latter.” 4. K.N. Mudaliyar, J. had in Samithurai Thevar K. and others v. T.E.S. Batcha with reference to section 198, Criminal Procedure Code, considered the connotation of the term “person aggrieved“ and he has observed that term ”the section does not say that complaint can only be made by the person defamed. What it requires is that the complaint must be made by “some person aggrieved”. The expression “some person aggrieved” was not intended to be restricted to the person actually defamed. It must be determined in each case according to its own circumstances whether the complainant could be said to be in a legal sense a person “aggrieved” within the meaning of section 198, Criminal Procedure Code. It is therefore, necessary to give a ruling on the meaning of the expression “person aggrieved” as it occurs in section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. It is therefore, necessary to give a ruling on the meaning of the expression “person aggrieved” as it occurs in section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. With great respect I am unable to agree with Natarajan, J., when he holds that the Registrarcannot be taken to be a person aggrieved by the offence so as to claim the benefit of the extended limitation provided under section 469 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code for, under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, the bye-laws of the chit have to be registered with the Chit Registrar and further under section 7 a certificate of commencement should be obtained from the Chit Registrar. These provisions have been made to ensure that there is proper supervision of the conduct of the chit from its very inception. If there is contravention of sections 3 and 7, then the Registrar will not be able to exercise such supervision which he is statutorily bound to exercise. Therefore, in my view, the Registrar of Chit Funds would certainly be a person aggrieved. 5. In view of this difference of opinion, the papers will be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for posting the matter before a Division Bench. Pursuant to the aforesaid reference of Honourable Thiru Justice Paul, dated 26th April, 1978, the aforesaid petition coming on for hearing before the Division Bench, the Court made the following Order: Maheswaran, J. This reference by Paul, J., raises a question of attractive importance and that question is whether the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Nagapattmam is a “person aggrieved by the offence” so as to claim the benefit of extension of limitation provided under section 469 (10) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. 6. The revision petitioners were conducting business in chits at Sirkali without registering the proposed by-laws of the chits with the Registrar and without obtaining the certificate of commencement from the Registrar of chits in violation of sections 3 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). A complaint was received from P.W. 2, Narasimhan by P.W. 1, Kalyanasundaram, Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Nagapattimm. He was also of the under Exhibit P-3, the proceedings of the District Registrar, to enquire into the matter. A complaint was received from P.W. 2, Narasimhan by P.W. 1, Kalyanasundaram, Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Nagapattimm. He was also of the under Exhibit P-3, the proceedings of the District Registrar, to enquire into the matter. He found the revision petitioners running a chit in violation of sections 3 and 7 of the Act and after obtaining sanction, Exhibit P-7, launched prosecution against the revision petitioners. 7. The defence was that a false case has been foisted on the revision petitioners. The trial Magistrate found the revision petitioners guilty of the offences charged and convicted them under section 56 (1) read with sections 3 and 7 of the Act and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under each count. In appeal, the convictions and sentences were confirmed. The revision petitioners are aggrieved and have filed this revision petition. 8. I find from the records that no objection as to the question of limitation has been raised by the revision petitioners. The memorandum of grounds of criminal revision does not contain any objection as to “limitation”. Obviously, this point was raised before Paul, J., which has necessitated this reference. The punishment proposed under section 56 (1) of the Act for violation of sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Act is imprisonment for one year and the Registrar of Chits should have filed the complaint within a year from the date of commission of the offence as specified in section 468(2)(A), Criminal Procedure Code. One chit, according to the complaint, was started from April, 1974 and the other from March, 1975. But the complaints were filed only on 4th January, 1977 as seen from the seal affixed to the complaints. The complaints themselves mentioned that the offences were brought to the notice of the department only on 19th July, 1976. The offences were committed in April, 1974 and in March, 1975. The contention of the Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the complaints are barred by the law of limitation as they have not been filed within a year from the date of the commission of the offences. The offences were committed in April, 1974 and in March, 1975. The contention of the Counsel for the revision petitioners is that the complaints are barred by the law of limitation as they have not been filed within a year from the date of the commission of the offences. Per contra, it was contended that the commission of the offences was not known to the Registrar and that the department came to know of the offences only on 19th July, 1976, and, therefore, the period of limitation begins to run only from the date of knowledge as prescribed in section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. It was then pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that the Registrar is not ‘a person aggrieved by the offence’ and therefore, cannot invoke the provisions of section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. As I earlier pointed out this plea was not taken before the Courts below. The question whether the Registrar of Chits could claim the benefit of section 469 (1) (b) of the Code as a “person aggrieved” by the offence is bereft of authorities. Except for the judgment of a single Judge of this Court, there appears to be no other ruling either of this Court or other Courts involving the question under reference. Nataraian,J., in Sulochana v. State, Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution) Madras held that the Registrar of Chits cannot be deemed to a “a person aggrieved by the offence,” under section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code, and consequently, the Registrar cannot claim the benefit of extended limitation provided under section 469 (1) (b). The reasoning of the learned Judge is that the Registrar has come forward with a complaint in performance of his official duty and not on account of any grievance felt or sustained by him in the contraventions committed by the petitioners and that the complaint preferred in discharge of one's official duty is one different from those preferred by persons aggrieved by the commission of the offence and that therefore, they fall under distinct categories. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance on the meaning of the words “aggrieved person” referred to in R. v. London Sessions Appeal Committee There, Lord Goddard, C.J., observed: “The best definition of the expression”aggrieved“is in Ex. To arrive at this conclusion, the learned Judge placed reliance on the meaning of the words “aggrieved person” referred to in R. v. London Sessions Appeal Committee There, Lord Goddard, C.J., observed: “The best definition of the expression”aggrieved“is in Ex. P. Sidebotham, Re: Sidebotham where James, L.J. said:” But the words “person aggrieved” do not’ really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit which might have received if some other order had been made. A ‘person aggrieved’ must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something.” That was a case where the Council's decision with regard to the cancellation of street trading licence has been reversed by a Magistrate of Bow Street. The right of the Council to appeal to Court of Session against that decision as an “aggrieved person” within section 64 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1947, has been negatived. It was held that it cannot be said that the Borough Council comes within those words ”aggrieved person“. It was observed in that case that it is seen from the decision that wherever the words ‘borough council’ is mentioned, it is always mentioned as ‘borough council’ and persons who may be affected by the order of the council are mentioned as a ‘person’ and that the right of appeal given by section 64 is to any person deeming himself ”aggrieved“ and that if it has been intended to give the borough council the right of appeal, the Act would have said “any person or any borough council deeming themselves aggrieved”. As the words ‘borough council’ was not mentioned in section 64, their Lordships came to the conclusion that a borough council cannot be termed as a “person aggrieved. ”But, in order to see as to how far the definition of the expression ”person aggrieved’ given by James, L.J., in Ex P. Sidebotham, Re: Sidebotham, is applicable to the facts of the present case, we have to refer to the objects of the Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961. 9. ”But, in order to see as to how far the definition of the expression ”person aggrieved’ given by James, L.J., in Ex P. Sidebotham, Re: Sidebotham, is applicable to the facts of the present case, we have to refer to the objects of the Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1961. 9. A reference to the Act shows, that the Act requires, under section 3 every chit should be registered with the Registrar and even if the foreman conducts more than one chit, each chit has to be separately registered and a chit agreement in duplicate has to be executed by the foreman and attested by two witnesses and such agreement has to be filed in duplicate with the Registrar. Section 7 prohibits commencement of any auction or drawing of any chit unless the foreman has obtained a certificate of commencement. Such certificate is granted on complying with the requirements of registration referred to. and on the foreman furnishing security provided in section 12 of the Act, and that section also requires that foreman shall execute a mortgage in favour of the Registrar by way of security of properties sufficient for the realization of the chit money, the chit amount being the total of subscription payable by the subscriber for any one instalment without any deduction. In the alternative, the foreman is required to deposit in any approved bank or invest in Government securities not less than half the chit amount and transfer the amount so deposited in favour of the Registrar and such security has to be necessarily given in respect of each chit transaction. The prizedsubscriber receives the prize amount on his furnishing security for the due payment of future subscriptions. A reading of this Act shows that the legislation was rendered necessary in order to be a check on defaults frequently committed by persons conducting the chit. Certain safeguards, both in the interests of the foreman and of the subscribers have been made in the Act, and in my view, these restrictions are quite reasonable. A reading of this Act shows that the legislation was rendered necessary in order to be a check on defaults frequently committed by persons conducting the chit. Certain safeguards, both in the interests of the foreman and of the subscribers have been made in the Act, and in my view, these restrictions are quite reasonable. So far as I could see from the provisions of section 54 of the Act, a foreman will be an aggrieved person if the Registrar by his order refuses to register the by-laws in accordance with section 3 or refuses to grant a certificate of commencement in accordance with section 7 or refuses to accept the security under Clause ( a) of sub- section (1) of section 12 or he refuses to release the property charged or to release the cash security or Government security under sub-section (1) or (5) of section 12 and he can appeal within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, to the Director of Chits. In respect of an order passed under section 26 (1) of the Act by the Registrar, the foreman or any other ‘person aggrieved’ can appeal to the Director of Chits. I have already pointed out that the legislation was intended to provide a measure of safety for the subscribers of chit fund transaction. That fact cannot be denied. Section 12 of the Act requires the foreman to furnish security to be held by the Registrar in trust. This, in my view, is to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations of the foreman. The foreman receives at each instalment of the chit transaction large amount of money which he has under the Rules to disburse to the prize winner less certain deductions. If the foreman does not carry out his obligations in this regard, the numerous subscribers to the chit would be left without any remedy, except perhaps by way of preferring suits which may in some case prove fruitless. If the foreman does not carry out his obligations in this regard, the numerous subscribers to the chit would be left without any remedy, except perhaps by way of preferring suits which may in some case prove fruitless. It is therefore, necessary that the Registrar of Chits takes action under the section 56 (1) of the Act for violation of the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 7 and in most of these cases the Registrar of Chits is not aware of the chits conducted in violation of sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Act, for, any person anywhere in the State of Tamil Nadu can at any time organize a business of chit without the knowledge of the Registrar. It may be that certain number of individuals join together to subscribe daily, weekly or monthly instalments for a fixed period of days, weeks or months. If everything goes on well, no one is bothered and no one complains about the irregularity of the foreman. But, if something goes wrong, the Registrar is apprised of the matter, as in this case, by a petition. It is only then the Registrar comes to know of the offence, and if by that time one year elapses from the time of occurrence, the Registrar of Chits is left without any remedy to prosecute under section 56 (1) of the Act. Could he not then resort to the provisions of section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code, to claim the benefit of extended limitation? Could it be said that the functions of the Registrar of Chits in the discharge of his official duty and even before they begin, because he has not filed the complaint within a year of the date of commission of the offence ? 10. The following meanings are given for the word “aggrieved” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles by William Little, H.W. Fowler and J. Coulson, Third Edition: “Hurt in spirit, now grieved; injuriously affected having a grievance; hurt; aggravated.” The words “aggrieved person” should not, in my view, be given a very restricted meaning as including only those against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. The expression “aggrieved” as defined by James, L.J., in Ex. The expression “aggrieved” as defined by James, L.J., in Ex. P. Sidebotham, Re: Sidebotham,, includes a person who has suffered a legal grievance. Cannot the Registrar who has been appointed under section 51 of the Act to discharge certain duties imposed upon him be said to be a person who is having a legal grievance, because, the foreman has violated certain provisions of law pertaining to the regulation of chits? Could he not therefore, resort to the provisions of section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code, when the offence relating to the violation of the provisions of the Act comes to his knowledge after a year of the date of commission of the offence? Could it be supposed that the legislature contemplated to deprive the Registrar, to whom it has given certain rights of having recourse to the provisions of section 469 (1) (6), Criminal Procedure Code, if the offence comes to his knowledge only a year later than the date of the commission of the offence? 11. In Samithurai Thevar K. and others v. T.E.S. Batcha the term “some person aggrieved’‘ in section 198, Criminal Procedure Code, has been considered by K.N. Mudaliyar,J., who has observed that the section does not say that complaint can only be made by the person defamed and what it requires is that the complaint must be preferred by ”some person aggrieved“ and that the words ‘some person aggrieved’ were not intended to be restricted to the person actually defamed. Section 469 (1) (6), Criminal Procedure Code, refers to the “person aggrieved by the offence”. Surely, it is not the subscriber who is aggrieved by the foreman not registering with the Registrar the proposed bye-laws or in the foreman not obtaining a certificate of the commencement of the chit. In my view, it will not be correct to hold that the “person aggrieved by the offence” in section 469 (1) (b) excludes the Registrar who is charged with the duty of enforcement of the provisions of the Act. One can presume that the legislature legislated only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. In my view, it will not be correct to hold that the “person aggrieved by the offence” in section 469 (1) (b) excludes the Registrar who is charged with the duty of enforcement of the provisions of the Act. One can presume that the legislature legislated only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If the Registrar is to be excluded from the purview of the definition of “person aggrieved by the offence”, it would reduce the Chit Funds Act to a futility, and if the Registrar is not allowed to invoke the provisions of section 469 (1) (b), the chit transaction will only be ineffectual. Considering the objects of the Act, I am clearly of the view that the Registrar would be very much a person aggrieved by the offence’ within the meaning of the term in section 469 (1) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. 12. If we now examine the facts of the case we would find that the revision petitioners have been running a business of chit transaction without registering the proposed by-laws in accordance with section 3 and without obtaining a certificate of commencement under section 7 of the Act. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 to 8 and P.Ws. 4 and 5 clearly establishes that the revision petitioners have been running two different chits in the village and that the revision petitioners have violated sections 3 and 7 of the Act. Both the Courts below have given a clear finding that the revision petitioners have not registered the proposed by-laws under section 3 and obtained the certificate of commencement under section 7. I see no reason to interfere with this finding. The revision fails and is dismissed.