JUDGMENT 1. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice on behalf of the State, hence, notice complete. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the order impugned. 3. By this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.2.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No.32 of 1998 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 468, Cr.PC. Being aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. 4. Briefly stated the facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition, are that the accused-petitioner is facing trial before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. A complaint was filed by the Food Inspector before the learned trial court on 26.11.97 on which a criminal case No.32/98 was registered against the accused-petitioner and the same is pending trial before the learned trial court. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sample of chilli powder was taken on 30.2.92 from the shop of the petitioner and report of the Chemical Analyst was issued on 19.1.93. On Analysis the sample taken from the accused-petitioner, it was found adulterated and, therefore, the sanction was sought from the competent authority for prosecution as envisaged under Sec.20 of the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954 which was received on 7.6.97 and thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Food Inspector against the accused petitioner on 26.11.97 before the learned trial court for the offence punishable under the Prevention of Adulteration Act, 1954. 6. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint filed by the Food Inspector and proceedings initiated therefrom against the petitioner are barred by period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468, Cr.P.C. He further contended that period of limitation is three years and complaint has been filed much after the period of 3 years as is apparent from the report of the Chemical Analyst i.e. 19.1.93. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned. 7. It is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that although the report of Chemical Analyst was received on 19.1.93 but the sanction for prosecution was accorded on 7.6.97 and, therefore, in computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of receipt of the order of the Government or other authority shall be excluded as envisaged under Section 470, Cr.PC. He further contended that the sample taken from the petitioner was found to be adulterated within the definition of Section 2(i-a) Q) and is punishable under Section 16 (i-a) (i) for which is punishable with imprisonment upto period of six years and with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, therefore, the provisions of Section 468, Cr.PC. are not attracted. 8. I have considered the contentions raised by the parties and perused the order impugned. In my considered opinion, there is a substance in the contention raised by the learned Public Prosecutor. In the instant case, the sample was taken by the Food Inspector from the shop of the petitioner on 30.2.92 and it was sent for chemical analysis and report was received from the Chemical Analyst on 19.1.93. Since as per opinion of the Chemical Analyst, the sample taken from the shop of the petitioner was found to be adulterated and, therefore, the sanction to prosecute the petitioner was sought from the competent authority, which was received on 7.6.97 and complaint was filed against the accused-petitioner before the learned trial court on 26.11.97. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation if the period of limitation is computed as envisaged under Section 468, 469 and 470, Cr.P.C. then it cannot be said that it is barred by period of limitation. More so, the offence punishable with imprisonment of more than 3 years for which, no period of limitation is prescribed. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no case is made out for abuse the process of court, therefore, the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.Petition under section 462 Criminal Procedure Code dismissed. *******