JUDGMENT: This appeal by the State is against the judgment of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar, acquitting the accused who are alleged to have violated Sec.11 of the Weights and Measures Act read with Rule 10(2) of the Rules. 2. Accused-1 was the Manager of the Co-operative Credit Society. Accused-2 was the Salesman. P.W.1 Assistant Inspector of Labour, inspected the shop and found the two litre measure has not been stamped for the year 1982 under Rule 10(2). He seized the measure and gave a receipt Ex.P2, for the same. The trial Magistrate, however, acquitted the accused on two grounds, namely, that the Complaint is barred by the law of limitation and secondly G.O.Ms.No.909, Food and Co-operation Department, dated 5.12.1981 has not been followed by P.W.1. 3. As regards the first contention, I may immediately point out that the offence was detected by P.W.1 only on 5.2.1982. The Complaint was filed on 26.5.1982. Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs thus: “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-sec. (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (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. (3) xx xx xx According to the defence, the offence was committed in June, 1980 and the Complaint should have been filed within one year from June, 1980. The Complaint itself is filed in 1982 and therefore it is barred by the law of limitation. But, it is stated that the offence was detected only on 5.2.1982 and the Complaint should have been filed within one year from 5.2.1982, that is on or before 5.2.1983. P.W.1 has filed the Complaint on 26.5.1982. The Complaint itself is filed in 1982 and therefore it is barred by the law of limitation. But, it is stated that the offence was detected only on 5.2.1982 and the Complaint should have been filed within one year from 5.2.1982, that is on or before 5.2.1983. P.W.1 has filed the Complaint on 26.5.1982. Sec.469(2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that the period of limitation shall commence, where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, on the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. In this case, the Complaint was filed on 26.5.1982 well within the period of limitation. The acquittal on the ground that the Complaint is barred by the law of limitation is therefore wrong. 4. But the acquittal on the ground that the Government Order has not been followed is quite correct. It is admitted by P.W.1 in his cross examination that under G.O.Ms.No.909, Food and Cooperation Department, dated 5.12.1981, before taking action against any person in the co-operatives, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies should be consulted by the authorities empowered to take action for violation of the provisions of the Weights and Measures Act, on their proposals and allow a period of one month from the date of delivery of their letter, and if the defects are not rectified and action is not taken against the persons concerned within the time allowed, penal action can be taken under the law. It is admitted by P.W.1, Assistant Inspector of Labour that no such action was taken. Mr.Kannappa Rajendran, Government Advocate, says that the Government Order is only a departmental instruction issued by the Government and there is nothing in the Act to show that P.W.1 should follow the Government Order. But departmental instructions are issued to all subordinates in order to protect the employees of the co-operative societies and to tone up the administration also. In the instant case, P.W.1 admits that he has not followed the direction contained in the Government Order giving the particulars to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Any Government Order is issued not for violating it, but to give effect to it. In the instant case, P.W.1 admits that he has not followed the direction contained in the Government Order giving the particulars to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Any Government Order is issued not for violating it, but to give effect to it. It is no use saying that after all it is only a Government Order issued by the Department concerned, and the Assistant Inspector of Labour need not follow it. Non-observance of the G.O., will cause prejudice to the accused, for the object of the G.O., appears to be to rectify the defects within one month from the date of delivery of letter to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and if the defects are not rectified within one month thereof, proceedings can be taken against the accused. In this case, that opportunity was not given to the accused and to that extent the accused is prejudiced. On that view, the appeal against acquittal has to fail. The appeal is dismissed. B.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.