JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:--This revision application is preferred against the order dated 31-1-1991 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, in Criminal Case No. 10 of 1987, dismissing an application (Exh. 16) filed under section 468 Cr.P.C. by the applicant/accused.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application are as under :

The respondent No. 1, Ashok son of Ruprao Ulhe, a Seed Inspector in the Department of Agriculture of Maharashtra State, had lodged a prosecution against the applicant/accused and two others under Clause 23(g) of the Seeds Rules, 1968, for contravention of section 7 of the Seeds Act, 1966. The complaint case is filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, on 2-1-1987. The learned C.J.M., Amravati, took the cognizance and passed an order issuing process against the accused persons including the present applicant. The applicant/accused (original accused No. 2) is the proprietor of Nilesh Agro Service Centre, Cotton Market Road, Amravati, which deals particularly in the various seeds and agricultural implements.

3. Respondent/Seeds Inspector visited the shop of the applicant/accused on 26-6-1986 and took samples of the seeds of Jawar. After completing necessary formalities, said sample was sent to the `Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur' for testing on 2-7-1986. The Seeds Testing Laboratory, Nagpur, had despatched the report of its analysis on 25-7-1986 and according to the analyst report, the sample was not upto the required standard. The complainant/respondent-Seeds Inspector received the report of the Seeds Testing Laboratory on 28-7-1986. After receipt of the report of analyst, the respondent/complainant filed the complaint against the applicant/accused and two others, on 2-1-1987.

4. The applicant/accused filed an application before the learned C.J.M., Amravati under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code and prayed that the institution of the complaint being after the period of limitation, the learned C.J.M., Amravati, ought not to have taken the cognizance and thereby, prayed that the complaint be dismissed and accused be acquitted. The application was resisted on behalf of the complainant/respondent and to that effect a reply was filed at Exh. 17. According to the respondent, the offence in question took place on 28-7-1986, when the complainant/Seeds Inspector came to know about the opinion of the Seeds Testing Laboratory and the complaint being filed on 2-1-1987, it is within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e. within 6 months.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel of the applicant/accused and the respondents, the learned C.J.M., Amravati, rejected the application filed by the applicant/accused, vide order dated 31-1-1991. Hence, the applicant/accused filed the instant criminal revision application in this Court.

6. Shri Kasat, the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused, has urged that in view of the provisions of section 468 Cr.P.C., the alleged offence is punishable with fine only and, therefore, the limitation for filing the complaint is of six months. Whenever the complaint is instituted after the prescribed period of six months from the date of commission of offence, the chargesheet/complaint is barred by limitation and no cognizance could be taken thereof. Further the learned Counsel for the applicant/accused submitted that the respondent/complainant is not entitled to get the benefit of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because he is not an aggrieved party. It is further submitted that the respondent/complainant is a public servant working as Seeds Inspector, who took the sample of seeds of Jawar on 26-6-1986 suspecting it to be adulterated and does not bear the germination capacity as required by Rules and Act, and, therefore, the offence took place on 26-6-1986. The limitation starts from 26-6-1986. The respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the C.J.M., Amravati, on 2-1-1987. It is, thus, clear that institution of the comp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document