ADMINISTRATOR MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated August 19, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sujangarh, by which the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance against the non -petitioner.

(2.) ADMINISTRATOR , Municipal Board, Sujangarh, lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Sujangarh, against Purshottam Khetan, Proprietor of M/s Public Medical Store, Sujangarh, Under Section 420, I.P.C. mentioning therein that the accused fraudulently brought medicines in the municipal area without paying the proper octroi and fabricating the false documents with the bank. It was alleged in the application that the petitioner brought these medicines in the municipal area without paying the proper octroi between the period from December 3, 1985 to March 3, 1986. The police, after necessary investigation, submitted the Final Report so far as the offence Under Section 420, I.P.C. was concerned and opined that only an offence Under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act has been made -out, which is a non -cognizable offence and the Municipal Board itself is competent to take action against the accused. After the submission of the final report by the police, a notice was given by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh to the complainant in the case and after hearing the complainant, the learned Magistrate by his order dated February 24, 1988, took the cognizance against the non petitioner Under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act and issued process. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor moved an application on December 19, 1988, requesting the Court to take cognizance against the non -petitioner Under Sections 467, 468 and 420, I.P.C. etc. After the service of the summons on the accused, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed an aplication on April 29, 1989. It was mentioned in the application that according to the allegations made against the non -petitioner by the complainant, the offence is allged to have been committed by him on March 17, 1986, while the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate on January 30, 1989. As the offence Under Section 132 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act is punishable with fine only, therefore, as per Section 463(1) Cr. P.C, the limit for taking the cognizance is only of six months. As the cognizance has been taken by the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation, the proceedings, therefore, deserve to be quashed. A reply to this application was filed and his stand was contested by the Public Prosecutor. The learned Magistrate, after considering the application of the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the congnizance was taken by the Court after the expiry of the period of limitation and, therefore, he dismissed the application filed by the Public Prosecutor and dropped the proceedings. The learned Magistrate, also, came to the conclusion that no offence Under Sections 420, 467, 468 or 471, I.P.C. is made -out. Aggrieved with this order, passed by the learned Magistrate, the Municipal Board has filed this revision petition.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the offence Under Section 132, of the Municipalities Act is a continuing wrong and, therefore, it is covered by Section 472, Cr. P.C. and not by Section 468 Cr. P.C. In support of his case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of the Supreme Court, I reported in State of Bihar v. Deo Karan Nensi : 1973CriLJ347 . The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has support the order passed by the learned lower I Court.