MALABAR MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple question in this appeal is whether the complaint filed against the respondent in the Trial Court was barred by limitation. The complainant (who filed this appeal) is the Secretary of Malabar Market Committee (which will be referred to hereinafter as the Committee) which was constituted under the Madras Commercial Corps Markets Act, 1933 (Madras Act 30 of 1933 for short 'the Act'). The complaint was filed against the respondent for contravening Clause.25(6) of the Malabar Market Committee Bye laws (for short 'the Bye law'). The trial magistrate found that the offence complained of cannot be taken cognizance of on account of the bar under S.468(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code' for short).

(2.) S.468(1) of the Code provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable only with fine, after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the offence. Clause.25(18) of the Bye laws makes contravention of any of the bye laws punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 50/-. S.19 (2) of the Act enables the making of provision in the Bye laws that contravention thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees. According to the learned magistrate, the offence was committed in 1982 and hence cognizance of it cannot be taken on a complaint filed as late as 19-7-1985.

(3.) S.19(1) of the Act empowers the committee to frame bye laws. In exercise of the powers conferred by the said Section, the committee bad framed the Bye laws. Clause.25(6) of the Bye laws says that "the licensee shall maintain regular accounts of his transactions in each kind of commercial crop in a form or forms approved by the Secretary and shall send to the Secretary such reports and returns as may from time to time be required in such forms as may be specified by him". It is alleged in the complaint that the respondent is a licensee under the Act and was dealing in coconut and its products having trade in Karuvancherry Village (Badagara Taluk). Respondent has not furnished monthly returns for the period from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982. The approved Form for submitting the returns was forwarded to the accused along with the notice sent by registered post on 21-2-1985. This fact is specifically averred in the complaint Ext. P6 is the copy of the said notice issued to the respondent. The following requisition is made in the said notice: "You are hereby requested to furnish to me within 7 days of the receipt of this notice, monthly returns of your transaction in Copra for the above period (from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1982) in the form given below".