PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT HYDERABAD Vs. M PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the two respondents who are father and son. Tne 1st respondent was charged under clause 3 (1) of the Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order read with section 7 of the Essential Gommodities Act. The 2nd respondent was charged With the offence under clause 8 (2) of the Sugar Dealer's Licensing Order. The former was a Foodgrains Dealer's Licensee and the latter was a Sugar Dealer's Licensee. They were however doing combined business. On 4th November 1973, P.W. 3 the Inspector inspected the shop and found discrepancies between the actual stocks lying in the shop and the storks as entered in the stocks register for wheat, rice and super etc. He seized the stocks and handed them over to the appropriate authorities. The chargesheet was laid on 3lst December, 10,74.

(2.) The defence was that these charges were not provided and trat in any case the prosecution was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 468 (2) (b), Criminal Procedure Code. The contention in regard to limitation is that the new Gode of Criminal Procedure applies because the charge-sheet was filed on 3lst D cember 1974 and since it was laid more than one year after 4th November, 1973 and as the inspection and seizure were made contrary to section 468 (2) (b) the prosecution was barred by time. The prosecution endeavoured to get over this difficulty by relying on section 484, Criminal Procedure Code which by repealing the Code of 1898 provides in clause (a) of sub-section (2) that if, immediately before the date on which this Gode comes into force, there is any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending then, such appeal, application, trial, inquiry investigation shall be disposed of, continued, held or made, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Griminal Procedure, 1898 as in force immediately before such commencement (the old Code), as if this Code had not come into force. The lower Court, however acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation though it recorded a finding that the accused had violated the provisions of the Foodgrains Dealers' Licensing Order and the Sugar Dealers' Licensing Order for not showing the stocks correctly in the stock registers.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor relied on section 484 (2) (a) and contended that since the investigation started on 4th November, 1973 and continued till 31st December, 1974 when the charge sheet was filed which act would come within the scope of investigation, the Code of 1898 would apply. If that applied, there was no bar of limitation at all as is now provided in section 468 of the present Code. Reliance in this behalf was placed on H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi and State v. Haridas Mundm