The main legal point established is that the court must exercise discretion to extend the period of limitation judicially and on well-recognized principles, as specified in Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Veena Birbal, J.

1. The petitioner filed the present petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 31st August, 2006 wherein learned M.M. has taken the cognizance and summoned the petitioner as well as for quashing of criminal complaint being case no.513/2006 pending before the Ld. M.M.

2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is as under:-

3. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Kolkatta. It is stated that petitioner is a part of the RPG Group of Companies and is a leading manufacturer of music compact discs and audio video discs having leading name in the market through out the country. It is alleged that on 13th October, 2005, the Inspector, Legal Metrology, Government of NCT of Delhi from the Weights and Measures Department/Metrology Department, i.e., respondent herein inspected the premises of one of petitioner’s distributor/seller i.e., M/s Music world at G-4, Deep Cinema, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi and seized a packed box of “5 CD collection of legend maestro Kishore Kumar melodies”. It is alleged that the same did not bear the date of packing as required under the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packing Commodities) Rules, 1977 as such committed breach of Section 33 and 39 of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notice dated 10th January, 2006 was issued by the respondent to the petitioner. Petitioner sent a reply dated 20.01.2006 to the same seeking some more time to collect the relevant information and thereafter sent a detailed reply on 02.02.2006 alleging therein that no breach as is alleged has been committed. Further, the product Audio CDs are non-perishable item and due to nature of product no harm or prejudice is likely to cause to any consumer even if date of manufacturing is not disclosed. Not satisfied with the reply, a complaint was filed on 31st August, 2006 against the petitioner and its distributor Sh. Manish Aggarwal, M/s Music World for breach of Section 33 and 39 of the Act. The Ld. M.M. took cognizance on the same day and summoned the petitioner for 24.11.2006. The advocate of the petitioner company appeared. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 15th December, 2006. On that day, authorised representative of the company had appeared. The learned M.M. adjourned the matter to 19.01.2007 and directed for appearance of Director of petitioner before the court. Aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance/summoning, the present petition is filed.

4. Mr.Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint filed before the ld.Special M.M. was barred by limitation as the same was instituted much beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). It is contended that Ld. M.M. while taking cognizance and issuing the summoning order has failed to consider that the complaint filed by the respondent was time barred. It is contended that no application was filed before the Ld. M.M seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that taking cognizance in a complaint instituted after the period of limitation, can be taken only if the prosecution makes a request for condonation of delay or the Court is satisfied with the reasons for the delay and feels that it is in the interests of justice, none of which was done in the present case. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon (i) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutt and anr: (2000)1 SCC 230; (ii)Anil Nanda vs. State and anr: 2008(104)DRJ154. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon Khalid Akhtar Latif Ahemi vs. The State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that complaint filed before learned M.M. is silent on this aspect. It is contended that in these circumstances, the learned M.M. could not have taken the cognizance of offence as is done in