Saligram and Anr. vs State of U.P.

S. R. Bhargava, J.—After hearing the Counsel of the revisionists and the learned A. G. A. this revision is being disposed of finally at admission stage.

Facts giving rise to this revision are that on 1171985 Distt. Supply Officer checked stocks of diesel and petrol of revisionists Salig Ram and Ram Prakash and found the stocks in excess. Case was investigated. Investigating Officer prepared chargesheet on 2771985. Then the matter remained pending. On 3111989 District Magistrate accorded sanction for prosecution of the revisionists with offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodifies Act. When the revisionists were summoned they moved application for dismissal of case against them and their discharged on ground of limitation, punishment prescribed is two years and according to Section 468, Cr. P.C. limitation for the offence is three years. Obviously chargesheet was submitted to the Court much beyond three years of the offence under Section 470, Cr. P.C. the period spent in obtaining sanction is to be excluded for purposes of limitation. Report was called from Special Judge Economic offences about the date when application for sanction of the District Magistrate was moved or when the papers including the chargesheet were submitted to the District Magistrate for his sanction; Report of the Special Judge is that there is nothing on the record to show as to when the Investigating Officer applied for sanction to the District Magistrate. From the facts it is evident that the period spent for obtaining sanction of the District Magistrate cannot be worked out. It would be more reasonable to infer that the chargesheet remained pending beyond three years from the offence and then in a huff some how the sanction of the District Magistrate was obtained and chargesheet was submitted to the Court concerned. In these circumstances no period for obtaining sanction can be excluded for purposes of limitation. Charge sheet was submitted to the Court concerned beyond period of limitation. Prosecution of the revisionists is, therefore, not maintainable and they are liable to be discharged.

Hence at this very stage I allow this revision quash the prosecution of the revisionists and discharge them. Revision allowed.