Cognizance of an offense under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the police take more than three years to complete the investigation and submit the charge sheet.

Surendra Narain Jha, J.

1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the First Information Report giving rise to Ranchi Kotwali P.C. Case No. 0071/1984, dated 3-2-84 and also for quashing of confiscation proceeding and restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioners on the basis of the said First Information Report. It was further prayed that the articles seized be released in favour of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners are partners of a registered partnership firm known as M/s. Bharat Oils and registered under the Indian Partnership Act who carries on business of manufacturing and wholesale of edible oil. The said firm holds a licence under the provisions of Bihar Edible Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 (for short the Licensing Order, 1966) which has been renewed from year to year. A renewal application in respect of licence alongwith renewal fee was submitted before the licencing authority annexing the original licence required to be submitted for such renewal.

3. It appears that on 2/3rd February,1984 the Executive Magistrate, respondent No.3 raided the business premises of the petitioners under the orders of Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Ranchi, respondent No.2 The raiding party after counting the stock at the business premises including the mills and the godowns locked and sealed the place where the articles were found and prepared a list of the seized articles including the articles taken by them as samples.

4. A written report was submitted by the respondent No.3 alleging, inter alia : That the licence has not been renewed for the year 1984 although it was valid till December, 1983. There was no entry with respect to Gunja seeds and there was no support for holding the seed in stock. Oil was packed in used tins of the several kinds bearing district marks. Stock register did not indicate the limits under the licence for storage and manufacture and number of other discrepancies were found by the raiding parties.

5. On the basis of the said report, the Officer in charge of Kotwali Police Station drew a formal First Information Report and registered the aforesaid Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P. S. Case No. 0071/1984 against the petitioners under Sec. 7/8 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act) and Sections 420 and 272 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Penal Code). A copy of the First Information Report is annexed as Annexure 2 to this application which is under challenge.

6. While admitting this application, vide order dated 13-3-1984, this Court did not stay the police investigation and the confiscation proceeding but the seized articles except Mahua were ordered to be released to the petitioners on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and pending final hearing of this application, the petitioners were ordered not to be arrested.

7. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners which shows that pursuant to the notice as contained in Annexure, the petitioners filed show cause reply before the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi in confiscation proceeding hearing Case No. 22-R- 28/83-84 and after hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 4-9-1987 dropped the confiscation proceeding while observing as follows:

"In view of the facts discussed above, I find that the only point that holds against the O.P. is point No.2. But, however, it has been contended by O.P. that there was no mens rea or injury to the State for nonmaintenance of the separate registers for different kind of oil. This as stated earlier has to be considered conjointly with other points. I find that the rest of the five points have been totally conceded by, the learned P. P. appearing on behalf of the State. If he had felt all that strongly about the case not being true, he could have advised the State