MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are running a business under the name and style of M/s. Murlidhar Satish Kumar in Palia Kalan, district Kheri. THE firm deals in the sale of articles of general merchandise and has also a shop dealing in cement for which it has a dealer's licence. An inspection of the shop was made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ighasan; on 3-10-1977 and in the course of inspection he found certain irregularities being violations of various provisions of the U. P. Essential Commodities (Display of Prices & Stocks and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1977. This order was issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. THE irregularities discovered were that the stock position did not tally with the stock position shown on the Board displaying prices and stock. THE said firm was also found in possession of 185 bags of cement on the plea that the owners were constructing a house and had purchased 216 bags of cement from various firms including their own firm. A first information report was lodged by the inspecting authority at the police station whereafter sanction for prosecution was obtained and a charge-sheet was submitted.

(2.) THE applicants had raised a preliminary point before the trial court stating that the charge-sheet had been submitted beyond the period of one year Which was the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 CrPC. according to them the offence was punishable under the aforesaid Order of 1977 and the said Order according to them was issued in exercise of the powers under clauses (h) and (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Section 7 lays down a punishment extending to one year's imprisonment for violation of the provisions of any order issued under the aforesaid clauses (h) and (i). As the offence complained of related to 3-10-1977 and the charge-sheet according to the petitioners was submitted on 2-4-79 clearly beyond one year even after excluding the period spent on obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution, it was contended that the trial court could not take cognizance of the matter by virtue of the bar under section 468 CrPC. THE contention was rejected by the trial court and a revision filed before the learned Sessions Judge also met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved the applicants have filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the orders passed by the two courts below may be set aside. It has also been contended that the entire proceedings pending before the trial court deserves to be quashed.

(3.) THE application under section 482 CrPC is accordingly rejected.