Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.:— The only point that arises for consideration in this Criminal Petition is, whether the prosecution launched is in time.
2. As a matter of fact, this question was raised by the petitioners/accused before the lower court having filed Crl. M.P No. 408/91 in C.C No. 24/91 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of 1 Class Dharmavaram, and this question was answered against the petitioners/accused as per order dated 16-3-1992 and the petitioners have allowed the said order to become final, as they have not chosen to agitate the correctness or otherwise of the same in the appropriate forum.
3. Anyway having considered the matter, since I have come to the same conclusion as that of the trial court, I wish to dispose of the same on merits. The petitioners are the accused in C.C No. 24/91 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Dharma varam. They were sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Sec. 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in brief ‘the Act’) for misbranding and other offences.
4. The facts relevant for disposal of the matter are that petitioners 2 and 5 to 7 are carrying on the business under the name and style of the 1st petitioner at Dharma varam and the 4th petitioner is the Managing Partner of the 3rd petitioner firm who are Distributors, that the premises of the 1st petitioner was supervised by the officers of the Agricultural Department and samples were taken on 30-11-1987, that the said samples having taken the requisite precautions were sent for analysis, that the report of the Analyst dated 10-2-1988 shows that the articles were misbranded and consequently the prosecution was launched on 29-12-1989 and thereafter the charge sheet was returned on some technical grounds and that ultimately, the Court took cognizance of the offence on 8-4-1991.
5. As per Sec. 29 of the Act, the punishment provided for is two years of imprisonment or payment of fine which may extend to two thousand rupees only or both. In view of that Sec. 468(2)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the Code) provides that the period of limitation is three years. Relying upon the said Section, M. Vidyavathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the prosecution, which is not launched within three years from 30-11-1987, the date on which the samples were taken, is barred by limitation.
6. On the contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the report of the Analyst was received only on 10-2-1988 showing that the articles were misbranded, that the cause of action arose only on the said date and the prosecution has to be launched within three years from the said date i.e, within three years from 10-2-1988, that the complaint was, in fact, filed on 29-12-1989 i.e, well within the period of three years from 10-2-1988, but due to some administrative reasons the complaint was returned number of times and that ultimately, the offence was taken cognizance by the Magistrate on 8-4-1991. He further submits that Sec. 473 of the Code provides extension of period of limitation in certain cases and since the complaint was filed on 29-12-1989 and it was returned on administrative reasons number of times, the period of limitation gets extended by virtue of Sec. 473 of the Code for the period taken for return and re-presentation of the Complaint and in view of that, the prosecution is in time.
7. M. Vidyavathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the limitation starts only from 30-11-1987 on which date the samples were taken. This submission cannot be accepted, for the reason that when a sample is taken, no offence was committed, as it is not known as to whether the article regarding which sample was taken was in fact misbranded or otherwise and for the first time, it was known to the prosecution that the article regarding which sample was taken was [misbranded only on the date on which the report of Analyst was received. In this case, the report of the Analyst was received only on 10-2-1988, which is the starting point for limitation and the prosecution has to be launched under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code within three years from 10-2-1988.
8. Let us take a case where the sample was taken on 1-1-1980 and the report of the Analyst was received only on 1-1-1984 i.e, after the three years period. In the event of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners viz., that the period of limitation starts from the date of taking sample i.e 1-1-1980, the culprit therein can never be prosecuted for the reason that the report of the analyst was not received within three years from the date of taking of the sample. It is also to be noted that in the event of the Analyst's report being in favour of the complainant, there may not be any occasion for the complainant being prosecuted. So, it follows that the limitation has to start and will start only from the date on which the report of Analyst is received, as that will give the cause of action to take further action in the matter.
9. Under these circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the prosecution is barred by limitation is not correct and the prosecution is well within the time.
10. The cognizance of this case was taken only on 8-4-1991, i.e, about two months beyond three years from the date of receipt of Analyst's report dated 10-2-1988. But it is to be noted that the complaint was filed as early as on 29th December, 1989, i.e, about one year and ten months after the report of the Analyst, but for various reasons, the complaint petition was returned for compliance of objections on administrative grounds and the delay was occurred only to comply with the said objections by the complainant and Sec. 473 of the Code can be invoked to extend the period of limitation in such cases. This is what exactly the lower court has done. The lower court held that the complaint since returned number of times, the said period has to be taken into consideration u/s. 473 of the Code. Viewing from that perspective, the complaint is filed well within the period of limitation taking into consideration the provisions of Sec. 468(2)(c) r/w. Sec. 473 of the Code. Since this case was instituted in the year 1991, the trial Court shall proceed with the further trial of the cases and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with Law. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11. Petition dismissed.