JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Leave to Appeal is directed against the Order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawa City whereby the learned Magistrate held the complaint filed by the appellant barred by proviso to Section 265(1) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the alleged evasion of octroi by the accused-respondent pertains to the period from 7.1.1991 to 6.6.1991 and before deciding to prosecute, a notice was issued to the accused- respondent to deposit the amount of fine on or before 15.11.1991 and when the accused-respondent failed to deposit the said amount of fine, this criminal complaint was lodged. He has, therefore, contended that this complaint is within the period of limitation. 4. I have perused the impugned order. In my opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is in accordance with the proviso to Section 265 of the Act. The proviso to Section 265 of the Act reads as under : "Provided that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or rule or bye-law framed thereunder shall be instituted except within six months next after the commission of such offence." It is clear from the proviso to Section 265(1) of the Act that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or rule or bye-law framed thereunder can be instituted except within six months next after the commission of such offence. It is further clear that the above proviso does not envisage the issuance of any notice to the defaulter to deposit the octroi duty or the penalty before launching of criminal proceedings against him. The appellant could have launched the criminal prosecution against the respondent immediately when it was revealed that the respondent has defaulted in making payment of octroi duty. There was no necessity to wait till the notice is served or the date expires within which the respondent was asked to pay the fine. 5. In this view of the matter, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nawa is just and proper and it requires to interference by this Court.This leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******