MOHAN RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the accused, 2 in number, who are charged for alleged offences under sections 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882 read with rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Possession of Sandalwood Rules, 1970. The charge is that on 2nd December, 1978, the accused were found in possession of 14 kilos and 12 kilos of sandalwood respectively, for which they were arrested on the same day. Later, charge-sheet against them was filed on 14th February, 1981 in C.C. No. 89 of 1981.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel in revision, it was concluded for the petitioners contends that the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year and so, as per section 468 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the charge-sheet ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the offences on 2nd December, 1978 and therefore, the prosecution was barred by limitation. This objection was raised before the trial Court which passed an order overruling the same. The reasoning of the lower Court was that the forest officials had to address the Superintendent of Police, Vellore and that the matter had to be investigated. Therefore, it was explained that the delay was on account of the correspondence in the office. The learned Magistrate, in the end, held that the delay was not wanton. The petitioners (accused) are aggrieved and they have come forward with this petition for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 89 of 1981.

(3.) THE result is, I hold that the prosecution was barred by limitation and therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No. 89 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Chengam (North Arcot District) are quashed. SAPNA