Bhim Sen vs The State of Rajasthan

B.R. Arora, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending against him and his other fourteen partners in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh.

M/s Bhim Sen and party was granted liquor contract for the retail sale of liquor for Group-shops at Suratgarh, Raisinghnagar and Padampur for the period from April 1, 1987 to March, 31, 1989. The petitioner is one of the partners of M/s Bhim Sen and Party. According to the prosecution, the main shop of M/s Bhim Sen and party situated at Anoopgarh, was searched on August 9, 1988, by the Excise Inspector, Suratgarh, and at the time of search, 155 bottles of simple liqour and eight bottles of rose- liquor were found. This stock was less than the required stock and according to the Excise Inspector, the petitioner, thus, contravened the condition for the liquor licence as he was required to keep in stock at least 15 days'' stock. Though the inspection was made on August 9, 1988, but the charge-sheet with respect to this offence was filed in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, against sixteen persons, who are partners of M/s Bhim Sen and party, on August 3, 1989. The learned Magistrate, after looking-into the challan papers, took cognizance against the petitioner u/s 58(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence u/s 58(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, is punishable with a fine of Rs. 500/-only and according to Section 468, Cr. P.C. the limitation for taking the cognizance has been provided. The period of limitation for taking the cognizance in the cases where the offence is punishable with fine only is only of six months which has been provided under Sub-section 2(a) of Section 468 Cr. P.C. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence in the present case was committed on August 9, 1988, but the charge-sheet was presented in the Court on August 3, 1989, and on the basis of that charge-sheet, the Court took the cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on August 3, 1989 itself. The learned Magistrate, as per the provisions of Section 468, Cr. P.C. was entitled to take cognizance only upto February 8, 1989 and by that time, even the charge-sheet was not submitted in the Court. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to the Court to extend the period of limitation in certain cases if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. In the present