Important Point
For complaint u/s. 18(A) r/w Sections 16, 17 and 17A punishable u/ss. 27(d) and 27(b)(1) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the limitation for the purposes of Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. 1973 will commence from date of Report of Government Analyst (i.e. the date of knowledge of the commission of offence to the concerned officer) u/s. 469(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 468 (2)(c)-Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences for which punishment prescribed is less than three years-Section 469-Commencement of period of limitation-Three alternative starting points of limitation-Date of offence-Knowledge of commission of offence-Knowledge of identity of offender-Offence under Section 27(d) and 27(b)(i) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940-Sample lifted on 29.2.1988-Report of Government Analyst dated 2.7.1988 showing drugs not of standard quality - Complaint filed on 28.6.1991-Starting point would be date of Report of Government Analyst-Complaint filed within 3 years so not barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c)-High Court’s view that it was barred by limitation is not correct - Appeal allowed. (Paras 13 and 14)
       Held : For the above reasons, in the instant case, the limitation for the purpose of Section 468(2)(c) will commence from July 2, 1988, the date of knowledge of the commission of offence to the concerned officer under Section 469(1) (b) but not from February 29, 1988 (the date of collection of samples by the Drugs Inspector) and as the complaint was filed on June 28, 1991 which is within three years so the complaint is not barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c). The High Court has missed this germane aspect and erroneously took the date of commencement of the limitation as February 29, 1988, the date on which the samples were collected by the Drugs Inspector from accused No. 16. It is thus clear that the High Court has committed illegality in so computing the period of limitation, which results in miscarriage of justice. (Para 13)
       In the result, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated April 11, 1996, allow the appeal and remand the case to the learned Additional Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 6 Jaipur City, Jaipur, for disposal in accordance with law. (Para 14)

Judgment

Quadri, J.-Special leave is granted.

2. The State of Rajasthan has assailed the validity of the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 293 of 1996 dated April 11, 1996.

3. On February 29, 1988, the Senior Drugs Inspector (I.B.), collected samples of (i) tenokap suspension B. No. 303 and (ii) Tab. Oxyphenbutabne I.P. B.No. 1114 from M/s. Jayshree Medical Centre, Baroda (Gujarat), meant for public sale. He sent those samples for chemical analysis to Government Analyst, Food and Drugs Laboratory, Baroda on March 2, 1988. In his report of July 2, 1988, the Government Analyst opined that those drugs were not of standard quality. After due enquiry and investigation the Drug Controller ordered prosecution of the respondents on February 3, 1990 and accordingly the Drugs Inspector (IB), Directorate, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed complaint under Section 18(A) read with Sections 16, 17 and 17A punishable under Sections 27(d) and 27(b)(i) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, on June 28, 1991. On the same day, the learned Additional Civil Judge & C.J.M., Court No. 6, Jaipur took cognizance on the said complaint as Criminal Case No. 247/91 and issued summons to all the respondents. That order of the learned Magistrate was questioned by the respondents before the High Court in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 293 of 1996, on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. By order of April 11, 1996, the learned Single Judge of the High Court who dealt with that petition accepted that contention and quashed the proceeding in the said criminal case initiated by the learned Magistrate on June 28, 1991.

4. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the State, contends that the High Court was in error in computing the period of limitation from the date of collecting samples instead of from the date of the report dated July 2, 1988 of the Government Analyst. Learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order of the High Court argued that the date when the samples were collected was the date of the offence so it was rightly taken as the starting point of limitation and from that date the complaint was clearly barred by limitation.

5. The only question that arises for consideration is : whether the complaint in question is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

6. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Chapter XXXVI has been added prescribing limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences with a view to expedite the process of detection and investigation of crimes and also to ensure observance of the principle of fairness in the trial of the offences by barring belated prosecution. Delay in prosecution of offences causes undue hardship as it keeps the sword hanging on the heads of accused persons and it also results in the material evidence getting vanished. This chapter applies to all such offences for which punishment prescribed is less than three years. But it does not apply to offences for which punishment prescribed is more than three years and to economic offences under various Acts, which are excluded under Central Act 12 of 1974 or any State Acts. It contains seven sections (467-473) Section 467 defines the expression ‘period of limitation’ used in the Chapter. Section 468 creates bar to taking cognizance of offences after lapse of period of limitation. Sections 469 to 473 deal with various aspects of computation of limitation. Of the aforementioned provisions, we are concerned with Sections 468 and 469. Sub-section (1) of Section 468 ordains that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the ‘period of limitation’ prescribed thereunder. This, however, is subject to the other provisions of the Code. Sub-section (2) postulates different period of limitation for offences with reference to the punishment provided for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document