JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application Under Section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 29.10 1982 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, in Criminal Case No. 210/77. 2. To understand the point of controversy it is necessary to mention some brief facts of this case. On 23.12.1975, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in the Court of C.J.M., Alwar, wherein it was alleged that on 9-12-1975 District Supply Officer along with Enforcement Inspector, inspected firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar and on checking it was found that the stock of bathing soap, tea, match-box and Surf was not displayed on the Board. Thus Rajasthan State Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Price) Order, 1975 and provisions of Section 114 of D.I.R. 1971 have been A charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and charge was framed on 22.4.1977. The prosecution evidence were recorded from 1978 till 4th August, 1980 and the case was posted for defence. The defence completed its evidence on 19.8.80 and the case was posted for final arguments on 25.8.80. On the request of the A.P.P. the case was not heard on that date. On 22.9.80 the A.P.P. moved an application to the fact that the charge is defective and the same should be amended. This application was necessitated by the A.P.P. because during the course of arguments the counsel for the accused pointed out that conviction is not possible on the charges framed. This application was opposed by the accused, but the learned Magistrate granted the application and ordered the charge sheet to be amended. Accordingly, the charge was amended and the evidence was resummoned. After resummoning the evidence the case again became ripe for arguments. At this stage, on 26th July, 1982, the A.P P. moved another application and prayed that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alvar should be impleaded as a party to the case. This application was opposed by the accused. But the learned Magistrate disagreeing with the accused accepted the application of the A.P.P. vide impugned order dated 29th October, 1982. Against this order the petitioner accused has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order of learned Magistrate is patently illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It has been argued that Section 468 Cr. P. C. prescribes period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence by the court. Against this order the petitioner accused has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order of learned Magistrate is patently illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It has been argued that Section 468 Cr. P. C. prescribes period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence by the court. According to sub-clause 2 of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation shall be:- (i) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only, (ii) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. (iii) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 4. While bringing to my notice Section 468 Cr. P. C. has been argued that this Section is with regard to an offence where in the period of limitation for offence of the category specified therein has been mentioned. After the expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed in this Section, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category mentioned above i. e. specified in Sub-Section 2. It has been argued that under the Defence of India Act, 1971, the punishment prescribed for contravention of any provision of rule 114 or any order made under this rule is extended to three years or fine or with both. According to Section 468 clause 2 Cr. P. C. the period of limitation has been prescribed for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years. This period is to be counted from the date of commencement of the offence. So this period of limitation is in relation to offence. In the present case the offence has been alleged to have been committed in the year 1975. Thus, as provided Section 468 Cr. P. C. taking cognizance against firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar is barred by limitation. 5. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that Section 469 Cr. P. C. is in relation to an offender. In the present case the offence has been alleged to have been committed in the year 1975. Thus, as provided Section 468 Cr. P. C. taking cognizance against firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar is barred by limitation. 5. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that Section 469 Cr. P. C. is in relation to an offender. According to this Section, the period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence : (i) On the date of the offence, (ii) Or 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 offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier, or (iii) 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. 6. Thus, when the firm was inspected in the year 1975, it was known to the District Supply Officer that the firm is a registered partnership firm and the petitioner is the partner of the firm and both have violated the provisions of E. C. Act and the D. I. R. Act. It was for the prosecution to submit charge sheet against the firm and its partners. The position of law that the firm is also to be prosecuted is expected to be known to the prosecution. Even when first amended application was moved in the year 1980 by A. P. P., he did not make any request to implead the firm as accused. It was their mistake and to remove this lacuna moved an application in the year 1982. So according to 469 Cr. P. C. the period of limitation with regard to offender has been given. Now the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar has been made accused. This firm is now an offender and so far as this firm is concerned the period of limitation shall commence on the date of offence i. e. of 9.12.75 when the firm was inspected by District Supply Officer along with Enforcement Inspector. Thus, in view of Section 468 and 469 Cr. P. C. the period for filing charge-sheet against the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar has expired. 7. Thus, in view of Section 468 and 469 Cr. P. C. the period for filing charge-sheet against the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar has expired. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued and brought to my notice the provision of Sub clause 2 of rule 114 of the Defence of India Act, 1971. This provision reads as under : "Provided that if any person contravenes any order made under this rule by restoring to any corrupt practices or other malafide action or by influencing any person to abuse his authority, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." Referring to this provision it has been argued that the action of the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar by not displaying the price and not keeping the stock of the articles is a mala fide action, so the punishments prescribes any such action is seven years, as such Section 468 and 469 Cr. P. C. have no applicability. I do not agree with these arguments. The case against the petitioner is that they have violated and contravened Rule 114 D. I. R. Act. No where it has been alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner or firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar, had acted mala-fidely. In the charges framed by the learned Magistrate no malafide action has been mentioned. It is not alleged that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar or the petitioner had acted malafidely. So unless a specific allegation is made of malafide this provision to Rule 11 of the D. I. R. Act, 1971 does not come into play. This is a clear case of violation of Rule 114 in which the punishments prescribed is three years. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor has no force. 8. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that according to Section 469 Clause (c) Cr. P. C. when the counsel for the accused objected that without impleading the firm as accused the petitioner cannot be found guilty, the prosecution came to know that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar is also an accused and he should be made or impleaded as an accused. P. C. when the counsel for the accused objected that without impleading the firm as accused the petitioner cannot be found guilty, the prosecution came to know that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar is also an accused and he should be made or impleaded as an accused. Thus the prosecution came to know that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar is also an offender or accused on the date when the arguments were being heard in the 1982, this application was moved and hence, the benefit of the period of limitation cannot be given to the accused. From the date when the prosecution came to know about this position that the firm is to be made accused, they moved this application and so the offence is within limitation. This argument has no force. It is a legal position that firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar has violated the provision of D. I. R Act and Rajasthan State Essential Commodities (Display of the Stock and Price) Order 1975. If the illegal position is not known to the prosecution, it is not the default of the petitioner Ignorance of Law is no excuse. Thus, I do not agree with this argument advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. After considering all the aspects of this case and the position of Law, I am of the view that the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Alwar is not correct. I have perused the order passed by him. The order is patently incorrect and illegal as he has ordered to take cognizance against the firm Jasoriya Products after the prescribed period of limitation. At this stage, when the case was pending since 1975 and was ripe in the 1980, then again charge was amended and the case was ripe in the year 1982 passing an order in the year 1982 impleading firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar as an accused is not a justified order. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not looked into and considered the provisions of Law. I am unable to maintain the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar dated 29-10-1982. Since the application under section 482. Cr PC, is accepted. The order dated 29-10-1982 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar is quashed. 10. The record of the case be sent back with the direct an to proceed with the case according to law. *******