CHARAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 3-7-1985 passed by Shri S.C. Srivastava, the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 1984, Charan v. State U.P. and another, whereby he dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the J.M. Special Court, Economic Offences, Jhansi Sri A.K. Srivastava inCriminal Case No. 669 of 1984, State v. Charan under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, P.S. Raksa, District Jhansi, whereby, the accused-revisionist has been convicted of the offence under S. 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the accused-revisionist was carrying cows milk for sale. The food inspector took sample from him and observing necessary formalities sent the sample to the public analyst who found that the milk was deficient in fat contents by 6% and deficient in non-fatty solids by 25%.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. The learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the conviction of the accused-revisionist on the ground that the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint made by the Food Inspector beyond the period of limitation allowed u/S. 468, Cr. P.C. He claims that the maximum punishment for the offence in question being only 3 years R.I., u/S. 468, Cr.P.C. no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-sec. (2) after expiry of the period of limitation. Sub-sec. 2(a) provides that the period of limitation shall be 3 years if an offence is punishable with an imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year but not exceeding 3 years. This plea was not open to be taken at this stage. It was supported to be taken at the stage when the Magistrate was taking cognizance or at the stage when the accused appeared before the Magistrate on being summoned. No such plea has been taken at any stage at the trial or even at any stage during the appeal before the Sessions Judge. Moreover, there is nothing to show at this stage that the complaint was filed beyond the period of 3 years from the date of the offence. So this contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist fails.