Suresh Chand Jain vs State of U.P.

P.K. Jain, J.—List has been revised. None appears for the revisionist. Perused the material on record and memo of revision and heard learned A.G.A. for the State.

Revisionist Suresh Chand Jain was being prosecuted by Sales Tax department for offences punishable under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. It appears that the offences were committed in the year 1981 whereas the complaint was filed on 2.5.1983, i.e.. beyond period of six months and one year provided u/s 468, Code of Criminal Procedure An application was moved on behalf of the revisionist stating that the complaint was filed after expiry of the limitation provided u/s 468, Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate was precluded from taking cognizance. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate rejected the said application.

The impugned order is challenged on the grounds that the Sales Tax authorities issued demand notices on 16.8.79 and 15.7.80 whereas complaint was filed on 2.5.83. The offence u/s 14(1) was punishable with fine only and u/s 14(2) punishable with imprisonment extended to one year. u/s 468, Code of Criminal Procedure the limitation for offences punishable with fine only is 6 months from the date of offence and for offences punishable with imprisonment the limitation is one year from the date of commission of the offence. Hence the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after expiry of the period of the limitation.

The punishment provided u/s 14(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000 and where the default is continuing one, to further fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for every day after the first day during which the default continues. Similarly, the punishment provided u/s 14(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is simple imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine or both and where default is continuing one, to a further fine which may extend to Rs. 100 for every day after the first day during which the default continues. Thus, the offences under Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act are continuing offences till compliance as provided under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) of Section 14, as the case may be, is made. Section 472, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in the case of continuing offence a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. Taking recourse to this proposition of law the learned Magistrate held that the compliant was not barred by limitation. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the circumstances indicated above. The revision is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, rejected.