Judgment

RAY, J.:- These two appeals are by special leave from the judgment dated 21 November, 1968 of the High Court at Madras dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16 November, 1965 acquitting the respondents.

2. The question which falls for consideration in these appeals is the interpretation of Section 40 (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to for brevity as the Section and the Act. The section is as follows:

"No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of".

3. The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted for violation of rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9 (b) and (d) of the Act and also under S. 420 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court found that the prosecution in both the cases was barred by the rule of limitation in Section 40 of the Act. The acts complained of in Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1969 occurred on 25 July, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 18 May, 1965. In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the acts complained of occurred on 20 June, 1964 and the complaint was filed on 15 January, 1965.

4. The appellant s contentions are three-fold. First, the section applies only to Government servants. Second, the words "anything done or ordered to be done under this Act" in the section do not mean any act in violation of the provisions of the Act. Third, the protection given to Government servants under the section is for actions done inadvertently or mistakenly but not for acts done deliberately and maliciously. It was therefore said that the prosecution of the respondents was not within the mischief of the section.

5. The respondents contention on the other hand is that the section applies to prosecution of the respondents for violation of the provisions of the Rules and the Act. it is further said on behalf of the respondents that they were rightly acquitted by the High Court because the prosecutions were instituted subsequent to the expiry of six months from the date of the alleged offences.

In Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1969 the complaint was filed on 18 May, 1965. The compliant was filed against accused No. 1 who was the licencee of Paulraj Match Works, Nallichatram and accused No. 2 who was the accountant in the factory and who had assisted accused No. 1 in the manufacture of matches and maintenance of accounts and records of the factory. The complaint against the accused who are respondents in this appeal was that on 25th July, 1964 the accused being proprietor and accountant respectively of Paulraj Match Works at Nallichatram were found to have affixed out banderols and torn banderols to the matches manufactured in the said Match Factory with a view to evade the payment of excise duty payable to the Government and that the accused also attempted to deprive the Central Government of Rs. 577.42 by their acts. The complaint against the accused was for violation of Rules 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under Section 9 (b) and (d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 511 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The further details of the complaint were that the register R. G. I. was not written out from 2 July, 1964 an R. G. 3 register was not correctly maintained. There was also a shortage of 50 leaves of banderols in stock.

6. In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the complaint was against accused No. 1 the licencee of Meenachi Match Works and accused No. 2 husband of accused No. 1 who was running the factory and maintaining accounts. The complaint against the accused was that on