The Public Prosecutor, Madras vs Gadi Satyanarayanamurthy

Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J.—This is an appeal against an acquittal. The offence complained of is under the Madras Prevention of

Adulteration Act. The offence was committed on the 8th September, 1949, but the complaint was filed on the 8th December, 1949. The accused

pleaded that the complaint was out of time by virtue of Section 19 of the Act, and the lower Court agreed with this contention and acquitted the

accused. The question for consideration is whether the day of the commission of the offence is to be excluded or included for purposes of

calculating the period of three months indicated in Section 19 of the Act. The words used are that no prosecution shall be launched after the expiry

of three months after the commission of the offence. On proper construction of the wording of the section, I am of the opinion that the complaint is

not out of time. The significance of the word ""after"" occurring in the section could not be lost sight of when the section has to be construed. But I

quite realise that it is a different matter to argue that since it is a criminal proceeding the benefit of a strict construction should be given to the

accused. I have also been referred to a decision by my learned brother, Somasundaram, J., where he has taken a strict view of the section and

held that the three months period would expire a day previous to the date of the actual commission. This decision would seem to overlook the

effect of the word ""after"" occurring in two places in Section 19 of the Act. However in the circumstances of the case and at this late stage I do not

think there is any need for ordering a further trial of the accused. No useful purpose will be served either. While holding that the learned Magistrate

was not right in his interpretation and while allowing the appeal for the reasons stated above, I think the accused need not be proceeded with

further.