Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1562 (MP)

Gopaldas Keshwani v. State of M. P.

2013-12-16

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the prosecution against the applicant who has been arrayed as one of the accused in the Trial Court. 2. A charge-sheet making out a case under Sections 7 /16,7(ii)(iii), 14A of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Rule 50 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 has been filed against the applicant on 21.07.2005. In the charge-sheet it has been stated that offence has been committed on 29.12.2001 when the samples of biscuit and cake were obtained from the establishment of applicant/accused by the Food Inspector. 3. The contention of learned counsel for applicant is that as per the prosecution’s own case the sample of the adulterated biscuit and cake were obtained on 29.12.2001 and admittedly charge-sheet has been submitted on 21.07.2005 which is ex facie barred by time as envisaged under Section 468 of CrPC. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Section 469 CrPC and submitted that period of limitation shall commence on the date of commission of the offence. Hence, it has been submitted that beyond the prescribed period of limitation which is three years, the charge-sheet has been filed and therefore prosecution launched against the applicant be quashed. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt and another AIR 2000 SC 297 and also two decisions of this Court Shri Krishna Sanghi and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1976 MPLJ 559 and Harishankar & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. ILR (2008) M.P. 977. 4. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor submits that all these questions shall be left upon at the time of conclusion of trial and at the threshold of trial these points cannot be decided. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm view that this application deserves to be allowed. 6. In the present case admittedly on 29.12.2001 the samples of biscuit and cake were obtained which were found to be adulterated in the report of Food Analyst. Admittedly, charge-sheet has been filed on 21.07.2005 which is beyond there years of prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 CrPC. 6. In the present case admittedly on 29.12.2001 the samples of biscuit and cake were obtained which were found to be adulterated in the report of Food Analyst. Admittedly, charge-sheet has been filed on 21.07.2005 which is beyond there years of prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 CrPC. It is also submitted by learned counsel at the bar that no application under Section 473 CrPC has been filed explaining proper delay in not filing the charge-sheet in prescribed time. 7. On bare perusal of Section 468 of CrPC this Court finds that it pertains to bar of taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation. Present case comes within the purview of Section 468(c) CrPC, which reads thus;- “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of any offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be-- (a) *** *** *** (b) *** *** *** (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. If the charges would have been proved under Section 7(ii)(iii) and 14A of the Food Adulteration Act the maximum punishment would be three years and therefore according to Section 468(2)(c) within three years the cognizance can be taken by the Court before whom the charge-sheet is filed. Admitted the charge-sheet was filed on 21.07.2005 and therefore cognizance which has been taken by learned Trial Court is barred by prescribed period of limitation. 7. That apart, Section 469 CrPC throws sufficient light that from which date the period of limitation should commence and as per Clause (a) the period of limitation would commence on the date of commission of the offence. Even if the present case is brought within the clutches of Section 469(1)(b), since the report of the Food Analyst is dated 06.02.2002 in which the samples were found to be adulterated, therefore, according to me, it came into the knowledge of the Food Inspector on the basis of said report that the offence under the Act of 1954 has been committed by the applicant/accused, therefore, within three years from 06.02.2005 charge-sheet should have been filed praying to Court to take cognizance. For ready reference I would like to quote Section 469(1)(b) which reads thus; 469. Commencement of the period of limitation- (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence;- (a) *** *** *** (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) *** *** *** 9. The decision of Supreme Court Tara Dutt (supra) placed reliance by learned counsel for applicant is squarely applicable in the present factual scenario. That, apart, two decisions of this Court Shri Krishna Sanghi and Harishankar (Supra) are also applicable since same principle has been laid down by this Court. 10. One important fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that despite the charge-sheet has been filed after prescribed period of limitation, if an application would have been filed under Section 473 CrPC seeking extension of period of limitation after properly explaining the delay the Court could have condoned the delay, but, no such application has been filed as stated by learned counsel for applicant-accused. Hence, according to me, charge-sheet which has been filed and the cognizance which has been taken by learned Trial Court is ex facie barred by time and the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the said offences. However, it is made clear that if the factual aspect that no application to condone the delay was filed, is found to be incorrect and if it is found that it was filed before passing of this order, the respondent-State shall be free to file necessary application to recall this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482 of CrPC is allowed and the prosecution of applicant-accused under the aforesaid section stands quashed.