BANWARI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application Under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. against the order dated 29.10 1982 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alwar, in Criminal Case No. 210/77.

(2.) To understand the point of controversy it is necessary to mention some brief facts of this case. On 23.12.1975, a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner in the Court of C.J.M., Alwar, wherein it was alleged that on 9-12-1975 District Supply Officer along with Enforcement Inspector, inspected firm Jasoriya Products, Alwar and on checking it was found that the stock of bathing soap, tea, match-box and Surf was not displayed on the Board. Thus Rajasthan State Essential Commodities (Display of Stock and Price) Order, 1975 and provisions of Sec. 114 of D.I.R. 1971 have been A charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner and charge was framed on 22.4.1977. The prosecution evidence were recorded from 1978 till 4th Aug., 1980 and the case was posted for defence. The defence completed its evidence on 19.8.80 and the case was posted for final arguments on 25.8.80. On the request of the A.P.P. the case was not heard on that date. On 22.9.80 the A.P.P. moved an application to the fact that the charge is defective and the same should be amended. This application was necessitated by the A.P.P. because during the course of arguments the counsel for the accused pointed out that conviction is not possible on the charges framed. This application was opposed by the accused, but the learned Magistrate granted the application and ordered the charge sheet to be amended. Accordingly, the charge was amended and the evidence was resummoned. After resummoning the evidence the case again became ripe for arguments. At this stage, on 26th July, 1982, the A.P P. moved another application and prayed that the firm Jasoriya Products, Alvar should be impleaded as a party to the case. This application was opposed by the accused. But the learned Magistrate disagreeing with the accused accepted the application of the A.P.P. vide impugned order dated 29th Oct., 1982. Against this order the petitioner accused has filed the present application under Section 482 Crimial P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order of learned Magistrate is patently illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It has been argued that Sec. 468 Cr. P. C. prescribes period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence by the court. According to sub-clause 2 of Sec. 468 Crimial P.C. the period of limitation shall be:-