Judgment :- (Criminal Appeals filed against the conviction and sentence dated 17.9.1998 made in STC Nos.3 and 4 of 1998 respectively on the file of the Special Court for E.C./NDPS Act cases for the Districts of Coimbatore, Periyar and Nilgiris at Coimbatore.) The appellants in both the appeals who are A-1 to A-4 in STC Nos:3 and 4 of 1998 on the file of the Presiding Officer for Special Court for E.C/NDPS Act cases for the Districts of Coimbatore, Erode and Nilgirs at Coimbatore, have preferred the present Appeals against the conviction and sentence of three months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/= in each case and in default one month simple imprisonment in each case, imposed on them under Section 7(1)a(i) of the Essential Commodities Act for violation of Clause 13(a)(1) of the Textiles (Development and Regulation) Order 1993. 2. The first accused who is a Spinning Mill and the accused 2 to 4 who are the persons for the conduct of the company, allegedly have not submitted the returns within the stipulated time as per the Notification of the Textile Commissioner for the quarterly period from July 1995 to September,1995 in the earlier case and from October 1995 to December 1995 in the latter case and hence, complaints were filed in both the cases. 3. On behalf of the prosecution side, P.Ws 1 and 2 were examined, besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.3, and on the side of the accused Ex.D.1, a circular issued by the Director of Regional office of Textile Commissioner, Coimbatore has been marked. Considering such evidence, the Special Court found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them as set out above in both the cases, which are under challenge in these appeals. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants mainly argued that both the complaints were not filed in time and they have to be rejected as barred by limitation as per Section 468 (2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also argued that the alleged offence has not been committed by the appellants, in that, P.W.1 admitted that the returns have been received in the office in time. It is further contended that there was no charge or allegations in Ex.P.2 complaint that Annexure-2 was not sent by the accused in time. It is further submitted that the charge sheets were filed beyond the period of limitation. 5. It is further contended that there was no charge or allegations in Ex.P.2 complaint that Annexure-2 was not sent by the accused in time. It is further submitted that the charge sheets were filed beyond the period of limitation. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that inasmuch as the appellants have not submitted the returns within the stipulated time enclosing Annxure-II, as per the Notification of the Textile Commissioner, the appellants have violated Clause 13(a)(1) of the Textiles (Development and Regulation) order 1993 and thereby punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. In both the cases, the complaints have been filed and action has been initiated under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act against the accused stating that the accused have not filed the returns with regard to true and accurate information regarding hank yarn in the format prescribed within a period of 40 days from the date of closure of each quarterly period by Registered Post with Acknowledgment due or by hand delivery. According to the prosecution for such offences committed by the accused, they are punishable under Section 7(1)(a) (i) of the Essential Commodities Act. 7. Section 7 (1)(a) of the Essential Commodities Act reads as follows:- (1) If any person contravenes any order made under Section 3,-- (a) he shall be punishable,-- (i) in the case of an order made with reference to clause (h) or clause (i) of Sub Section (2) of that section, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and shall also be liable to fine, and (ii) in the case of any other order, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 8. Admittedly, as per Section 468 (2)(b)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence is six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. Inasmuch as under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is punishable not less than three months, it is clear that the period of limitation in respect of the offences levelled against A-1 to A-4 is one year. Inasmuch as under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is punishable not less than three months, it is clear that the period of limitation in respect of the offences levelled against A-1 to A-4 is one year. In the earlier case the complaint was made on 2.2.1996 and the charge sheet was filed on 22.9.1997 and in the latter case complaint was made on 9.4.1996 and the charge sheet was filed on 22.9.1997. Therefore, as stated so, in both the cases, the charge sheets have been filed after one year from the date of complaint and as such both the cases are clearly barred by limitation as per Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Admittedly no application was filed to condone the delay in filing the charge sheets. As per Section 3(2)(h) and (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, an order made thereunder may provide for collecting any information or statistics with a view to regulating or prohibiting any of the aforesaid matters, for requiring persons engaged in the production, supply or distribution of or trade and commerce in any essential commodity to maintain and produce for inspection such books, account and records relating to their business and to furnish such information relating thereto, as may be specified in the order. Inasmuch as the case of the prosecution that the appellants have not submitted the returns within the stipulated time as per the Notification of the Textile Commissioner it is within the meaning of Section 3(2)(h) and (i) of the Essential Commodities Act,. So, only the offence under Section 7(1)(a)(i) is attracted, which offence is punishable to one year and shall also be liable to fine. In that view, inasmuch as the charge sheets in both the cases have been filed beyond the period of one year, both the cases are clearly barred by limitation as per Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Though it is stated by the Special Judge that the charges were framed as punishable under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act, however, by an erroneous approach to the issue, held that the charge sheets were filed under Section 7(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, which is punishable upto 7 years and as such there was sufficient time to lay the charge sheets. 11. 11. In view of the fact that only offence under Section 7(1)(a)(i) of the Essential Commodities Act alone is attracted since action has been initiated under Section 3 (2)(h) and (i) of the Essential Commodities Act, and the charge sheets were not filed within a period of one year as per Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though the charge sheets were filed mistakenly under Section 7(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act also, these Criminal Appeals are liable to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed in STC Nos.3 and 4 on the file of the Special Court for E.C. and NDPS cases, Coimbatore are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges. The fine amount is ordered to be refunded.