BHASKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kulithalai in Crl. M.P. No. 2142 of 1985 rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the accused.

(2.) A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for contravention, of the provisions of S.40 of the Tamil Nadu General Salses Tax Act, 1959 r/w Rr. 25 and 26(5) of the Rules framed under the Act. Such contravention is punishable u/s. 45(2)(CC) of the Act. Under S.45(2)(CC) of the Act, an offender is liable to be punished only by way of fine and for the subsequent offence, he is liable to be punished by way of simple imprisonment which may extend to six months. Therefore, the period of limitation is six months as per S.468(2)(a) of the C.P.C.

(3.) It is admitted that the date of the commission of the offence is 19-9-1984 and the date of filing of the complaint is 18-4-1985. The complaint is obviously beyond the period. of six months. The provisions of S.470(3), Cr. P.C., were invoked in order to save limitation. In fact the Department had issued to the petitioner two notices. The period in each notice is 10 days. Even if we include the period of both notices, that will make only 20 days and the prosecution would be hit by limitation on 9-4-1985, Therefore, the complaint dt. 18-4-1985 is obviously beyond time. Secondly the department has got a right to issue only one notice for the purpose of compounding u/s. 46 of the Act. In this case, it has issued the first notice on 5-11-1984 without indicating the amount for which the offence can be compounded. It only says that it can be compounded for a sum fixed by the D.C.T.O., Musiri. That notice is not in order and therefore it will not constitute a valid notice u/s. 473 Cr. P.C.