The requirement in Section 13(3) of the Official Secrets Act amounts to taking of previous consent or sanction of the appropriate Government, and thus the time taken for obtaining such order or authorization from appropriate Government shall be excluded while computing the period of limitation under Section 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) THE Revisionist, Rakesh Kumar Jain is facing prosecution for contravention of the provisions of Sections 5 (2) and 5 (3) of Official Secrets Act, 1923 in Criminal Case No. 317/94, Union of India through Deputy Superintendent of Police, C. B. I. , Special Police Establishment v. Rakesh Kumar Jain, Joint Managing Director of M/s. Jain Sudh Vanaspathi Limited. He moved an application under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) before the Trial Court for his discharge from the case on two grounds, namely, that the order of his prosecution had not been passed by a proper authority and that cognizance could not have been taken as the complaint was barred by limitation. By the impugned order dated 17. 3. 1995 passed by Shri A. K. Garg, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the aforesaid application has been dismissed. Hence this criminal revision.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and the respondent. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that he ought to have been discharged on the following two grounds, namely; (1) that the complaint against the revisionist was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) that the order to file the complaint ought to have been given by Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi i. e. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and, therefore, the order actually given by the Central Government in the name of the President of India was invalid.

( 3 ) THUS it is to be seen that the pleas taken here for discharge of the revisionist from prosecution are the same which were before the Trial Court.

( 4 ) I have gone through the impugned order and I may say that it is a well written and well discussed order.

( 5 ) THE complaint was filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, Special Police Establishment after it received the order dated 21. 4. 1988 of Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The order portion thereof reads as follows

"now, therefore, the Central Government in pursuance of Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) hereby orders that the said Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain should be prosecuted in a Court of competent jurisdiction for the offence punishable under the said Act and authorise Shri K. N. Tiwari, Deputy Superintendent of Police,central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi to lodge a complaint against the said Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain for the acts aforesaid in the Court of competent jurisdiction".

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for revisionist says that the proper authority as envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in this case was Lt. Governor and not the President of India. That sub-section reads as follows:

"13 (3) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless upon complaint made by order of, or under authority from the appropriate Government or some officer empowered by the appropriate Government in this behalf".

( 7 ) FROM the above provisions, it is clear that a Court cannot take cognizance of any offence under the Official Secrets Act unless there is a complaint made by order of, or under authority from, the appropriate Government or some officer empowered by the appropriate Government in this behalf. The question for consideration in this case is which shall have been the appropriate Government. The Central Government in the name of the President of India or the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi.

( 8 ) THE term "rppropriate" has been defined in Sub-section (5) of section 13 of the Official Secrets Act. According to that definition, it shall, in relation to any offences under Section 5 not connected with a prohibited place or with a foreign power, be the State Government and in relation to any other offence, the Central Government. Since the offence under question is under Section 5 not connected with a prohibited place or with a foreign powe