CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

The Executive Engineer, Phulbani Electrical Division vs State of Orissa

Orissa High Court · Decided on 17 July 1981 · Citation: (1981) 52 CLT 453

HON’BLE JUDGES
J.K. Mohanty, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 468(2) · Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1956 — Section 3, 35, 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 21
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 162 of 1980
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

6 paragraphs · 349 words

J.K. Mohanty, J.—The Executive Engineer, Phulbani Electrical Division, Phulbani is the Petitioner. The prosecution report was filed by the District Labour Officer and Inspector under the Orissa Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the ''Act'') on the ground that the Petitioner failed to submit a statement as required u/s 4 of the Act which is punishable u/s 35 of the Act. Cognizance on the prosecution report was taken on 31-8-1974. The accused-Petitioner appeared in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Phulbani and raised the following objections:

(1) That the prosecution report has been filed bey md time as prescribed u/s 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2) That the Petitioner being a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, Indian Penal Code in the absence of sanction from the competent authority the prosecution shall not lie.

(3) That the Act does not apply to the Petitioner as would be evident from Section 3 of the Act.

2.

In this case, according to the prosecution report, the date of occurrence was 1-12-1977 and the complaint has been filed on 27-8-1979 i.e. more than one year and eight months after the occurrence. u/s 35 of the Act the offence is only punishable with fine. So the maximum period of limitation for taking cognizance as provided u/s 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is six months. The learned Magistrate has wrongly held that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to this case and that as no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act, the prosecution report can be filed at any time. As the prosecution has been filed beyond time and no application for extending the time of limitation has been filed in this case, the cognizance taken is to be quashed. In view of the above finding, it is not necessary to decide the other points raised by Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

3.

In the result, therefore, the revision is allowed. The cognizance taken by the Magistrate in 2(c) C. No. 48/79 dated 31-8 1974 is quashed.