JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 303/81 and other connected misc. petitions given in Schedule `A' and `B' The facts of the present case and the other cases mentioned in schedule `A and `B are the same and the paints involved are identical except that in the present case and the cases given in schedule A complaints were filed on September 28, 1981 and in the cases given in schedule `B' complaints were filed on February 18, 1982. In the present case and the cases given in schedule `A cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and in the cases mentioned in schedule `B cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. 2. It will suffice to give facts of case No. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 303/81. One Gopiram filed an application before the City Magistrate, Bikaner where in it was mentioned that the petitioners have constructed about 80 shops on K.E.M. Road, Bikaner and some of the shops are lying vacant. He prayed that a shop out of these, which are lying vacant may be allotted to him. A notice was given by the City Magistrate to the petitioners under Section 17 (1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short the Act hereafter), informing that premises are required by Gopiram and that they should appear before him on September 15, 1980 and show cause against the letting of the premises to said Shri Gopi Ram. Reply to the notice was tiled wherein a plea was taken that shops have been constructed for specified individuals after entering into agreements with them and have been let out to them. The relevant material was also submitted with the reply. It appears that on a complaint made by Gopiram, the City Magistrate, appointed an advocate as Commissioner, to go to the spot and inspect the site. The Commissioner inspected the site and gave his report on May 16, 1981 wherein it was given out that except shops no. 21 to 29, 31, 33 to 45 which were lying vacant all shops were in possession of the tenants. The City Magistrate moved to the District Magistrate for sanction and the sanction was given to the City Magistrate by the District Magistrate on July 27, 1981. The complaint was thereafter filed on September 28, 1981. 21 to 29, 31, 33 to 45 which were lying vacant all shops were in possession of the tenants. The City Magistrate moved to the District Magistrate for sanction and the sanction was given to the City Magistrate by the District Magistrate on July 27, 1981. The complaint was thereafter filed on September 28, 1981. It appears that an application was moved for sanction on August 19, 1981 and the sanction was received on July 27, 1981 in the present case and those entitled in schedule 'A' and in cases entered in schedule `B' on January 20, 1982. After the sanction was received as already stated above complaint was filed and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an offence and issued process in all the cases. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Act itself is a complete Code and even prescribes the period of limitation of three months from the commission of the offence within which the complaint had to be filed upon which the court could try the case. He submits that even from the allegations as given in the complaint and the undisputed facts, the complaint had been filed after the prescribed period of limitation and as such the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence under section 23 of the Act and it amount to abuse of the process of the court if the trial is allowed to continue. It will cause harassment to the accused petitioner. 4. A look at the complaint filed by the City Magistrate before the Magistrate will show that it is clearly mentioned therein that contravention of the notice under section 17 (1) of the Act was done by the accused Petitioners on May 15 and 16, 1981 and the complainant came to knew of the same on May 14, 1981. It also appears that in the set of cases given in schedule `A of this order, the papers for sanction were sent to the District Magistrate on June 16, 1981 and his sanction was received on July 27, 1981. In second set of cases contained in schedule B it appears that papers for sanction were moved on June 15, 1981 and on August 19, 1981 and sanction was received on January 20, 1982. In second set of cases contained in schedule B it appears that papers for sanction were moved on June 15, 1981 and on August 19, 1981 and sanction was received on January 20, 1982. It has been already stated earlier that in the set of cases contained in schedule B complaints were filed on February 18, 1982. Thus, the contravention if any of the notice under section 17 (2) of the Act had come to the notice of the City Magistrate on May 14, 1981 or at any rate on May 15 and 16, 1981. It will be relevant to refer here to section 23 of the Act which is a penal section as well as provides limitation:- "Sec. 23.- Panalties.- (1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or any order made in pursuance thereof, shall be punishable on conviction with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with line upto Rs. 1,000/- or with both. (2) Any person who attempts to contravene, or abets a contravention of any order made or deemed to be made under this Act, shall be deemed to have contravened that order. (3) If the person contravening an order made or deemed to be made under this Act is a company, partnership firm or other body corporate, every, director, partner, manager, secretary or other officer or agent or the managing agent thereof, shall unless he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention, be deemed to be guilty of such contravention. (4) All offences under this Act shall be triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class. (5) No Court shall try any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by or with the sanction of the District Magistrate within three months from the date of the commission of such offence." It will be seen that if any person contravenes any of the provisions of the Act or any order made in pursuance thereof, he shall be convicted with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months or with a flue of Rs. 1000/- or both. 1000/- or both. All the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate of first class and under sub section (J)of Section 23 of the Act no court shall try any offence under the Act except on complaint made by or with the sanction of the District Magistrate within three months from the date of commission of the offences. The Act is a self contained Code and so far as sentence and limitation for the filing of the complaint is concerned it contains clear provisions. The Act being Special Act the period of limitation prescribed in chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure to my mind will not apply. A look at Section 4 (2) Cr.P.C. will show that offence under any other law (other than the Indian Penal Code) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being the force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. Thus the contravention even as per allegation of the complainant case to the notice at any rate on 15/16th May, 1981. The complaint was filed on September 28, 1981 in the first set of cases contained in schedule `Aand on February 15, 1982 in the second set of cases given in schedule `B' and thus was filed after the prescribed period of limitation. Hence the learned Magistrate under sub-section (5) of Section 23 could not take cognizance of the offences and try the case. That apart assuming for the sake of arguments, though not admitting, that provisions of chapter XXVI Cr.P.C are applicable, even then it will not make any difference to the ultimate result of this petition. Under sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Act, the complaint could be filed by the District Magistrate himself within three months from the commission of such offences. It could also be filed with the sanction of the District Magistrate, but in any case it could have been filed within three months from the date of commission of such offence. Thus, no question of exclusion of time taken in the sanction arises in this case. Viewed from any angle the complaints are time barred and learned magistrate could not have tried the accused for offences under section 23 of the Act or under section 188 I.P.C. on the complaints. 5. Thus, no question of exclusion of time taken in the sanction arises in this case. Viewed from any angle the complaints are time barred and learned magistrate could not have tried the accused for offences under section 23 of the Act or under section 188 I.P.C. on the complaints. 5. I am of the opinion that taking cognizance of the offences in cases out of which misc. petitions arise was abuse of process of the Court. I, therefore, allow this petition as well as petitions contained in schedule 'A' and 'B' of this order.I hereby quash the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance and all the proceedings in all cases out of which misc. petitions arise. S.No. Case No. Name of Parties 1. Cr. Misc. Application No. 315/81 Johri Chand & Ors. v. State 2. " 315/81 " " " 3. " 317/81 " " " 4. " 319/81 " " " 5. " 321/81 " " " 6. " 323/81 " " " 7. " 325/81 " " " 8. " 327/81 " " " 9. " 329/81 " " " 10. " 331/81 " " " 11. " 333/81 " " " 12. " 335/81 " " " 13. " 337/81 " " " 14. " 339/81 " " " 15. " 341/81 " " " 16. " 343/81 " " " 17. " 345/8 " " " 18. " 347/81 " " " 19. " 349/81 " " " 20. " 351/81 " " " 21. " 353/81 " " " SCHEDULE 'A' S.No. Case No. Name of the Parties 1. S.B. Cr. Misc. Application No. 58/82 Johri Chand & Ors. V. State 2. " 60/82 " " 3. " 62/82 " " 4. " 64/82 " " 5. " 66/82 " " 6. " 68/82 " " 7. " 70/82 " " 8. " 72/82 " " 9. " 74/81 " " 10. " 76/82 " " 11. " 78/82 " " 12. " 80/82 " " 13. " 82/82 " " 14. " 84/82 " " 15. " 86/82 " " 16. " 88/82 " " 17. " 90/82 " " 18. " 92/82 " " 19. " 94/82 " " SCHEDULE 'B'Application allowed. *******