AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.B. Siddappa, J.—This revision case is filed against the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1276/96 in STC. No. 3/94 on file of Special Judge for Essential Commodities Act case-cum-Sessions Judge, Anantapur.
The facts of the case are as follows : The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell, Anantapur laid charge-sheet against the accused alleging that on the morning of 1-6-1993 at 7 A.M. lorry bearing MYT 6395 was proceeding with a load from Bollanaguddam towards Bellary. When the lorry was checked it contained 100 bags of paddy Tella Hamsa variety, each bag weighing 75 kgs. The said bags were transported without any valid transport permit. Entire goods were seized. A-1 is the owner of the lorry. A-2 is the brother of A-1. A-3 is the driver of the lorry. After investigation, charge-sheet is laid for contravening Clause 3 of Andhra Pradesh Paddy (Restriction on movement) Order, 1987 and Clause 3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 punishable under Sections 7 and 8 of Essential Commodities Act. In this case, charge-sheet was filed on 17-12-1993. The case was taken on file on 2-9-94.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the charge-sheet is filed beyond six months. u/s 12-AA of the Essential Commodities Act, the Court is entitled to punish the offender for a period not exceeding two years. Therefore by virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C, the charge-sheet filed beyond six months is barred by limitation. On this ground, he seeks quashing of the proceedings.
The lower Court negatived the contention taking into consideration the punishment prescribed. under Sees. 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities Act.
Offences in this case is for violation of Clause 3 of A.P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) order, 1987 and also for violation of Clause 3 of A.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982. The contraventions are punishable u/s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. The offence is punishable with minimum sentence of 3 months which may extend to seven years. Therefore, there is no limitation if this section is taken into consideration.
The lower Court was right in saying that Section 12-AA of the Act was introduced by way of amendment and the intention was to try the offences under the Act in summary procedure. It was observed that it shall be lawful for the Special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. This is only a matter on procedure. It is only recommendatory and does not displace the quantum of punishment prescribed u/s 725 of the Principal Act. The quantum of punishment mentioned in this petition is not relevant for determining the quantum of sentence for violation of the above said provisions. Therefore, no limitation is prescribed for filing the charge-sheet by virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C. The lower court was right in taking this view. There are no grounds to interfere. Hence, the revision case is dismissed.