J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Code for short) the appellant-State has assailed the legality and validity of the order of acquittal recorded by the learned judicial Magistrate First Class at Dholka in Criminal Case No. 179 of 1984 on 25. 7. 1984. ( 2 ) A resume of the material and relevant facts giving birth to the present appeal may be shortly stated so as to appreciate the merits of the appeal and challenge against it. ( 3 ) THE original complainant one C. N. Patel was working at the relevant time as an Agricultural Inspector and he filed a criminal complaint against the respondents- original accused persons in the court of the learned judicial Magistrate First Class at Dholka for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Sec. 19 of the Seeds Act 1966 (the Act for short ). The prosecution alleged that the complainant while performing his duty as an Agricultural Inspector on 29. 6. 1983 obtained sample of seeds from the original accused No. 1 and it was noticed that the sample was of sub-standard. The sample was sent to the Public Analyst for analysis and report. According to the report of the Public Analyst the said sample was found not in conformity with the standard prescribed. Therefore it was the prosecution case that the accused persons were guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the Act which is punishable under Section 19 of the Act. The original accused No. 1 was dealing with the distribution of agricultural seeds and original accused No. 2 was working as a retailer. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances the trial court held accused persons not guilty holding that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation and there was a bar of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code. Hence this appeal under Section 378 of the Code by the appellant-State. ( 4 ) IT would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. According to the prosecution case there is violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. It would be therefore necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act which read as under:sec. ( 4 ) IT would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. According to the prosecution case there is violation of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. It would be therefore necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 7 of the Act which read as under:sec. 7 Regulation of sale of seeds of notified kinds or varieties no person shall himself or by any other person on his behalf carry on the business of selling keeping for sale offering to sell bartering or otherwise supplying any seed of any notified kind or variety unless (a) such seed is identifiable as to its kind or variety; (b) such seed conforms to the minimum limits of germination and purity specified under clause (a) of section 6; (c) the container of such seed bears in the prescribed manna the mark or label containing the correct particulars thereof specified under clause (b) of section 6 and (d) he complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed". According to the prosecution case the sample seeds were found sub-standard and such an act was in violation of the provisions of section 7 of the Act which is made punishable under section 19 of the Act. Section 19 of the Act provides penalty in case of any contravention of the provisions of the Act or any rule made thereunder. It will be therefore necessary to refer to the said provisions. Section 19 reads as under: 19 Penalty.- If any person (a) contravenes any provision of this Act or any rule made thereunder; or (b) prevents a Seed Inspector from taking sample under this Act; or (c) prevents a Seed Inspector from exercising any other power conferred on him by or under this Act he shall on conviction be punishable (i) for the first offence with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and (ii) in the event of such person having been previously convicted of an offence under this section with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both ". As could be seen from the aforesaid provisions that the accused can be punished on conviction for tile first offence with fine which would extend to Rs. 500. As could be seen from the aforesaid provisions that the accused can be punished on conviction for tile first offence with fine which would extend to Rs. 500. Thus the maximum penalty which could have been imposed on the accused persons by the trial court would be a sentence of fine which would extend to Rs. 500. ( 5 ) AT this stage it may be remembered that in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code there is a bar in taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Under Section 468 (2) of the Code the limitation prescribed is six months if the offence is punishable with fine only. The impugned offence under section 7 of the Act is punishable only with fine and therefore the period of limitation for riling the complaint will be six months. The complaint was not filed in the trial court within the period of limitation. According to the prosecution case the period of limitation would begin from the date of the report of the Public Analyst in respect of the sample seeds. Assuming that this contention of the prosecution is correct then in that case also the complaint is not filed within the period of limitation. The report of the Public Analyst is dated 2. 7. 1983. The alleged offence took place on 29. 6 The complaint is filed on 24. 1. 1984. It is the contention of the defence that the complaint should be filed on or before 29. 12. 1983 within the period of six months after the occurrence of the alleged offence that is 29. 6 Even if the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is accepted to be true and correct then also the complaint is not filed within the period of six months as prescribed under section 468 (2) of the Code. Thus the complaint is filed beyond the period of limitation. It may also be mentioned that the prosecution has not tendered any explanation or reason as to why the complaint was filed late and there was a delay beyond six months. Had there been my such contention or ground explaining or showing justification for extension of the I period of limitation the court could have considered under section 473 of the Code. No such ground or explanation is submitted or urged. Had there been my such contention or ground explaining or showing justification for extension of the I period of limitation the court could have considered under section 473 of the Code. No such ground or explanation is submitted or urged. In view of the faces and circumstances narrated hereinbefore and the aforesaid legal scenario the present appeal under section 378 of the Code is meritless and is required to be dismissed. In the result the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .