JUDGMENT Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 6th August, 1997 passed by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon wherein in Appeal No. 131/95 respondent herein Chhedulal has been acquitted of the charges. Appeal was preferred by Chhedulal respondent against the order dated 5/12/95 in Criminal Case No. 411/90 whereby respondent was convicted under Section 36 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 and was sentenced to 3 months SI and fine of Rs. 2000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complaint was filed by Deputy Director, State Government Town and Country Planning, Rajnandgaon under Section 36 and 37 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam on the ground that by notification dated 21/07/78 published in the gazette under Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 whereby existing land use and area was notified and by virtue of section 16 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 land used was freezed meaning thereby no development over the land could be carried out by anyone within the notified area. It was case of the complainant that on 1/07/87 respondent had started constructing his house over the land bearing Khasra No. 85/13 admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. without obtaining permission of the development authority and despite giving notice he did not stop the construction. Thereafter, complaint was made under Section 36 and 37 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. During course of trial, the respondent abjured his guilt and tried to explain the fact that an application was filed for diversion in respect of the land. 3. Learned court below after evaluating the facts and evidence convicted the appellant under Section 36 of the Act and sentenced him to 3 months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In absence of payment of fine 1 1/2 months imprisonment was further ordered. Being aggrieved by such order an appeal was preferred. In the appeal bearing No. 131/95 learned court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon acquitted the respondent/accused and hence this acquittal appeal by the State. 4. Learned State counsel submits that order of the court below in acquitting the respondent/accused is without jurisdiction as the court has misinterpreted law applicable to it. He further submits that respondent did not stop the work despite notice and as such case was made out. 4. Learned State counsel submits that order of the court below in acquitting the respondent/accused is without jurisdiction as the court has misinterpreted law applicable to it. He further submits that respondent did not stop the work despite notice and as such case was made out. He therefore stated that order of the court below of the Judicial Magistrate should be restored and the appeal be allowed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that order of the court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and the evidence. 7. Undisputedly complaint in this case was filed by Additional Director on 16/01/89. The complaint at para 4 of it purports that on 1/07/87 the respondent had started construction of house in the land bearing Khasra No. 85/13 and respondent was not able to place on record any permission, therefore there was clear violation of the Act. So according to own complaint of prosecution, the cause of action arose on 1/07/87 for the Section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Perusal of the document would reflect that prosecution in this case has filed a document dated 31/08/1987 marked as Ex. P-7 and proved the fact the respondent has stopped the construction after receiving the notice u/s. 36 of Act of 1973. So on one part it has been stated that construction had started on 1/07/87 which was eventually stopped according to the document of prosecution on 31/08/1987. Section 36 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 prescribes penalty for unauthorised development or for use otherwise than in conformity with development plan and reads that any person who, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person, commences, undertake or carries out any development or changes use of any "land without permission required under this Act without prejudice to any action taken under section 37 i.e. for removal of the unauthorised development shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both. No limitation has been prescribed in this section to file such complaint. 8. Section 468 of Cr. No limitation has been prescribed in this section to file such complaint. 8. Section 468 of Cr. P.C. prescribes the law of limitation which reads as under:-- "Section 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 an 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. six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; b. one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; c. three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 3. For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment". 9. Here since the imprisonment under Section 36 of the Act is prescribed to be 6 months, therefore necessarily it will be covered under section 468(2)(b) and that complaint should have been filed within one year i.e. law of limitation prescribed. According to the complaint, respondent had started his construction on 1/07/87. As per the complainant and further document Ex. P-7 also shows that construction lasted up till 31/08/1987 and the complaint was filed on 16/01/89. Necessarily therefore the complaint was filed beyond period of limitation and after going through the order of the court below, I am of the concurrent view that no illegality has been committed by the court below. Learned court below after evaluating the evidence and documents on record has reached to correct finding of fact which is not required to be disturbed in this appeal. Consequently, appeal has no merit and it is hereby dismissed.