MATTE SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case is filed by the accused, in C.C. No.76 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. The case was filed against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 25 of the Tobacco Board Act (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner alleged to have committed the offence in the year 1999 for not obtaining licence to do business in tobacco. On 17-5-1999 the Vigilance Squad inspected his shop and noticed that registers were not maintaining in Form No.25. The petitioner failed to provide information of registration for the year 1998-99. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 21-5-1999 informing as to why the petitioner shall not be prosecuted. On 18-7-2000 the accused company addressed a letter in reply to the notice dated 21-5-1999. On 11-9-2000 the Executive Director gave sanction order under Section 11B(i) of the Act to prosecute the petitioner. The complaint was filed on 1-4-2004. The offence is punishable for imprisonment for two years, therefore, the complaint has to be filed within three years from the date of obtaining the sanction order. But the second respondent did not file the complaint for about four years and the complaint was filed only on 1-4-2004. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2646 of 2004 before the trial Court raising the question of limitation and pleaded that since the complaint was barred by limitation it has to be dismissed as not maintainable under law.

(2.) The complaint was filed by the Secretary, Tobacco Board of India. He was authorized by the Executive Body of the Tobacco Board to file the complaint on behalf of the Tobacco Board. In pursuance of that the complaint was filed by the Secretary of the Tobacco Board on 1-4- 2004. The learned Magistrate observed that the complainant obtained authorization to file the complaint on 11-1-2002 from the Secretary, Tobacco Board, and on 1-4-2004 the complaint was filed, therefore the complaint was filed within two years, two months and 20 days after obtaining authorization from Tobacco Board, Guntur. Hence there is no violation of Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the second respondent.

(3.) The learned Magistrate gained an impression that the complaint was filed by the Auction Superintendent who was authorized to file the complaint against the petitioner through the letter dated 11-1-2002. But, on perusal of the complaint it was revealed that the Secretary of the Tobacco Board of India himself filed the complaint, therefore, the alleged authorization letter dated 11-1-2002 given by the complainant himself is of no use. Authorization to person who is not competent to sue or be sued in the name of the Tobacco Board or the authorization to a person who is not the complainant will not save the limitation. Since the Secretary failed to file the complaint within three years from the date of receipt of the sanction order, the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468(1)(c) of Cr.P.C. The complaint, therefore, cannot be maintained against the petitioner. Since the trial Court erred in appreciating the facts properly, the order of the trial Court dated 19-1-2005 is liable to be dismissed.