Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. Order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 22.8.1988 while discharging the accused-respondents for an offence under Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act, stands challenged by the State in the present revision. 2. On 3.11.1983 Central Warehouse-I, G.T. Road, Ludhiana was raided and fertilizer lying there was taken into possession. At that time, respondent No. 1 was Manager of the aforementioned Warehouse while respondent No. 2 was Assistant Sales Officer of M/s Indian Potash Limited. Initially, a complaint was filed by the department, which was dismissed and the accused discharged by Shri T.N. Gupta, the then Presiding Officer of Special Court. Lateron, FIR No. 85 dated 12.6.1985 was registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana against the accused-respondents. 3. On 15.3.2010 at the time of hearing of the revision, the Court perused the office report wherein it was mentioned that respondent No. 2 had since died. The office report was based upon the certificate dated 7.9.2009 issued by Naresh Kalra, Area Manager (A&A) of Indian Potash Limited. Learned State counsel also informed the Court that after visiting the office of Indian Potash Limited, the concerned police official was informed that respondent No. 2 had already died. However, learned State counsel prayed for an adjournment for verification of the aforementioned fact. 4. As per the report of Assistant Commissioner of Police (South), Ludhiana, Head Constable Swaran Singh of Police Post Dhandari Kalan (Focal Point), Ludhiana was deputed to know the correct addresses of the respondents and it was revealed that respondent No. 2 had died on 8.12.1983. In this regard, copy of the death certificate duly attested by the Notary Public has been placed on record. 5. Despite best efforts, respondent No. 1 has not been served so far. On the last date of hearing, the said respondent was sought to be served at his Delhi address. However, when Head Constable Swaran Singh of Police Post Dhandari Kalan (Focal Point), Ludhiana visited the said address of respondent No. 1, he came across Dinesh Kumar, who told him that in January 2008, respondent No. 1 sold the said property to him and left for an unknown place regarding which he did not have any information. 6. It appears that no useful purpose would be served by securing the presence of respondent No. 1 as that would entail wastage of time and unnecessary expenditure. 7. 6. It appears that no useful purpose would be served by securing the presence of respondent No. 1 as that would entail wastage of time and unnecessary expenditure. 7. I have perused the impugned order. 8. It is a fact that the fertilizer lying in the store of the Central Warehousing Corporation was neither meant for sale nor exhibited for sale. Moreover, the sample from the fertilizer so stocked was secured on 3.11.1983 and according to the prosecution the accused were liable for an offence under Section 12AA of the Act. For such an offence, maximum sentence of imprisonment of two years could be imposed upon the accused. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. come into play as per which no Court could take cognizance of the offence beyond the expiry of three years. Admittedly, in the present case, the challan had been presented on 26.7.1988, which was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed. No application had been filed by the prosecution for the condonation of delay. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision which is, therefore, dismissed.