NOHAR CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. petition No. 4556-M and No. 4558-M-of 1983.

(2.) BOTH these petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing the First Information Reports No. 15 and 16 dated 11th January, 1980, registered in Police Station Majitha, against the petitioner and others. The petitioner also prays for quashing of the charge framed against him in the two cases instituted on the basis of those First Information reports in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar.

(3.) MANY grounds have been taken in the petitions, but before me only two grounds were pressed, and, therefore, I will confine the discussion to those two grounds alone. The first ground taken is that the case has to be tried summarily in view off section 12-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as the present offence falls under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957, issued under section 3 of the said Act and which order has been declared a special order and as in a summary trial under the above provision a Magistrate can impose sentence of imprisonment only upto one year, therefore, the Courts are not competent to take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of one year from the date when the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the police. According to the learned counsel, the case was registered in January, 1980 while the charge sheet was presented in the Court some where in January, 1983. According to him, the period of limitation would be governed by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 468 of the code. I need not dilate on this point because it has been already discussed in detail in a judgment given by me in Dharam Nath and another v. The State of Punjab, 1984(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 20, (Crl. Misc. No. 2065-M-of 1983 decided on 19th August, 1983), wherein I had held that as the offence, like the present one under the Fertilizer Control Order, 1957, was punishable with imprisonment for a term which might extend to seven years, therefore, section 468 of the Code was not applicable.