DEVEN MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure wherein the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10. 8. 1988 by which the Special Judge, E. C. Act, Madhubani, has taken cognizance for the offence under sections 7 and 8 of the Essential commoditios Act for violation of the Fertiliser Control order against the petitioner.

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitoner that in view of section 12 AA which has been incorporated by the Eseential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 the maximum sentence is two years and as such the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation as provided under section 468 of the code of Criminal Procedure as the offence in the present case is alleged to have taken place between 8. 12. 1984 to 13. 12. 1984. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appear to have substance. The Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 came into force on 1st September, 1982 and clause (f)of sub-section (1) of section 12aa of the essential Commodities Act provides that all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(3.) THUS, from the aforesaid provision it is clear that the maximum sentence is two years. Under section 468 of the Code of criminal Procedure the limitation is three years where the imprisonment is for a period of two years. In the present case cognizance has been taken beyond three years. It has been further submitted that there is no order passed by the Special judge under section 473 of the Code of criminal Procedure extending the period of limitation.