CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Devan Mandal and Others vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 6 March 1992 · Citation: (1992) 03 PAT CK 0023

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Hoda, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 468, 473, 482 · Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 — Section 12AA, 12AA(1), 7, 8
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1164 of 1989
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 362 words

S. Hoda, J.—This application has been led u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the Petitioner as assailed the order dated 10.8.1988 by which the Special Judge, E.C. Act, Madubani, has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 7 and 8 of the Essential commodities Act for violation of the Feriser Control Order against the Petitioner.

2.

It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that in view of Section 12AA which has been incorporated by the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981 the maximum sentence is two years (sic)d as such the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation as provided u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the offence in the present case is alleged have taken place between 8.12.1984 to (sic).12.1984. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners appear to have substance. The Essential Commodities special Provisions) Act, 1981 came into (sic)rce on 1st September, 1982 and Clause (f) (sic) Sub-section (1) of Section 12AA of the Essential Commodities Act provides that all offences under this Act shall be tried in a summary way and the provisions of Sections 262 to 265 (both inclusive) of the Code shall, as far as may be, apply to such trial provided that in the case of any conviction in a summary trial under this section, it shall be lawful for the special Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

3.

Thus, from the aforesaid provision it is clear that the, maximum sentence is two years. u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the limitation is three years where the imprisonment is for a period of two years. In the present case cognizance has been taken beyond three years. It has been further submitted that there is no order passed by the Special Judge u/s 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure extending the period of limitation.

4.

In the aforesaid circumstances the order taking cognizance is clearly barred by limitation and it has to be set aside.

5.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the order dated 10.8.1988 passed in G.R. Case No. 65/85/54/87 is hereby quashed.