MADAN MOHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S.482 Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of the prosecution proceedings against the accused/petitioners under Ss.5 and 25 of the M.P. Entertainment Duty and Advertisement Tax Act, 1936, read with Rr. 8(a), 3(a) and (b) and 13 of the Rules framed thereunder.

(2.) It appears that the accused petitioners own Mahalaxmi Cinema at Ambah. On 30-10-74 the record relating to sale of, cinema tickets and collection of entertainment tax was checked by officials of the Excise Department. It was found that accounts were not correctly maintained; that duplicate tickets were sold; and that several documents forming part of accounts did not cross-tally. The entertainment duty to the tune of Rs. 38,000/- and odd, and additional tax to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and odd was found to have been evaded. On 5-12-74, the petitioners were served with a notice to explain their conduct. They replied to the notice on 26-12-74. The investigation having been completed, the prosecution was launched on 2-5-75.

(3.) Cognizance having been taken, the accused/petitioners were summoned and they appeared before the Court. Particulars of the offence were explained to them. When the trial was at its fag end, on the date of final arguments, the accused petitioners moved an application under S.408 Cr. P.C. inviting attention of the Court to the fact that the offence being one punishable with fine only, the Court was debarred from taking cognizance on the expiry of a period of 6 months from the date of the offence and as such they prosecution was liable to be dropped. The trial Court overruled the objection by resorting Sub-Section (3) of S.470 of the Criminal P.C. holding that the accused/petitioners having been served with 7 days notice of prosecution, that period was liable to be excluded from counting period of limitation, which if done, the prosecution was not barred by time. The petitioners preferred a revision. The learned Sessions Judge did not agree with the reasoning of the trial Court and held that the notice issued by the Excise Department calling for explanation from the accused/petitioners could not be called a notice of prosecution. Nevertheless, the order of the trial court was upheld placing reliance on S.473 of the Criminal P.C. which contemplates limitation prescribed by S.468 of the Code being extended in certain cases. The accused/petitioners have come up to this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under S.482 of the Criminal P.C., 1973.