ARUN DUBEY Vs. DISTRICT SMALL SAVING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment dated 29. 01. 20088 passed by CJM, Indore, in Criminal Case No. 98/1998, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 468 (2) (a) of Cr. P. C, for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent, was dismissed, present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case arc that petitioners were prosecuted under sections 13 and 14 of the M. P. Lottery (Niyantran Tatha Kar) Adhiniyam 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam 1973) by filing a complaint on 31. 3. 98, wherein the allegations against the petitioners was that the petitioners failed to submit the return in the prescribed proforma in time in compliance of Section 13 of the Act. It was alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was the President of the Lottery committee, Table-Tennis Trust Indore having its office at Khel Prashal, Roshan singh Bhandari Marg, Indore while Petitioner No. 2 was the President of the trust at the relevant time. Trust was alloted a land by the State Government for the purpose of indoor stadium on the said land. Vide letter dated 5. 4. 1984, 8. 5. 1984 and 26. 7. 1984, permissions were given to Table-Tennis Trust Indore for opening the three lottery draws for the purpose of construction and development of said stadium. In compliance of the said permissions the lottery draws took place i. e. on 12. 7. 85, 31. 1. 1985 and 3. 2. 1986. Since the returns of the lottery draws were not submitted in time,herefore, prosecution was filed by the Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners on 31. 3. 98, wherein it was alleged that petitioners were required to submit the accounts as per Sections 13 and 14 of the Adhiniyam 1973 read with rules 11 and 12 of the Rules, which has been framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. within a period of seven days from the date of draw of the lottery in Proforma - E, which has not been complied with by the petitioners in time, hence petitioners be convicted. In support of the complaint the statement of Dattatray Laxman Vibhute, Senior retired Small Saving Officer was recorded on 25. 10. 07. Thereafter an application was filed by the petitioners on 3. 12. 2007 under Section 468 (2) (a) of Cr. P. C, wherein it was alleged that as per the complaint the alleged offence is between the period of 12. 7. 85 to 3. 2. 86 and the complaint has been filed on 31. 3. 1998 i. e. after a lapse of 12 years. It was alleged that as per the Sections 13 and 14 of the adhiniyam 1973 read with Rule II and 12 of the Rules, the maximum penalty which can be imposed is Rs. 500/-, therefore, the complaint can be filed at the most within a period of six months from the date of commencement of offence. It was alleged that since complaint is filed after 12 years, therefore, complaint be dismissed. The application was opposed by filing reply. After hearing the parties learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners, hence this revision petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submit that learned Trial Court committed error in not considering that the alleged offence as mentioned in the complaint is from 12. 7. 85 to 3. 2. 86. Since under Section 14 of the Adhiniyam 1973 the maximum punishment is Rs. 500/- only, therefore, complaint ought to have been filed within a period of six months from the date of alleged offence, but the same was filed on 31. 3. 1998 i. e. after expiry of 12 years and after the prescribed period of limitation. It is submitted that no cognizance could have been taken by leaned Court below, but inspite of allowing application learned Court below committed error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners.