The legal provision under section 468 Cr.PC., which bars the cognizance of offences punishable with one year's imprisonment after the lapse of 15 years, was the central legal point established in the judgment.

1. - By this criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482 Cr.PC., petitioners seek quashing of FIR No. 147 dated 17.8.1996, Police Station, Degana and order of Collector, Nagaur dated 18.6.1996.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the first Information report, order of Additional Food Commissioner dated 15.4.1993 and Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan (for short "the revisional court") and order of the Collector dated 18.6.1996.

3. Proceeding was initiated against the petitioners at the instance of Govind Narayan before the Collector. The petitioners filed preliminary objections regarding locus standi of Govind Narayan to file appeal. The Collector vide order dated 31.10.1990, rejected the preliminary objection and entertained the appeal filed by Govind Narayan. Thereafter, the matter was carried to the revisional court and the revisional court vide order dated 15.4.1993, in Revision No. 89/90, set aside the order dated 31.10.1990. Thereafter, again Govind Narayan filed Appeal No. 4/89 before District Collector, Nagaur. The Collector vide order dated 18.6.1996 held that Govind Narayan cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and the appeal can only be entertained filed by an aggrieved person. However, the Collector directed the District Supply Officer, Nagaur to prosecute the petitioners. On the basis of the order of the Collector, Nagaur dated 18.6.1996, one Sajjan Singh, Enforcement Inspector, Degana lodged impugned FIR No. 147 dated 17.8.1996, which is under challenge in this criminal miscellaneous petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from a bare reading of the FIR, it is revealed that offences as alleged to have taken place in the months of November and December, 1987 and almost 15 years have elapsed. Punishment under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is one year's imprisonment. He contended that if offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, then limitation for taking cognizance as provided under section 468 Cr.PC. is one year, From the date of occurrence, about 15 years have already elapsed and, therefore, even if the case is investigated, section 468 bars the cognizance and no useful purpose will be served by continuing the proceeding. Learned Public Prosecutor does not controvert this legal proposition.

5. Having considered the material on record and the rival contentions raised at the bar, I am of the considered opinion that no useful purpose will be served by continuing the FIR as there is specific bar of taking cognizance under section 468 Cr.PC. after lapse of 15 years of the offence which is punishable with one year's imprisonment. If the FIR is allowed to continue, then it will be an abuse of process of court and, therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice, the FIR should be quashed.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. FIR No. 147 dated 17.8.1996, Police Station, Degana and the order of the Collector, Nagaur dated 18.6.1996 are hereby quashed.Petition Allowed - Complaint quashed.

*******