Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–In view of the conflicting judgments of this Court in Bhimsen vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and Kunj Bihari Lal and Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan (2), an order was passed on 3.12.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 114/93 by Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur (as he then was) referring the matter to the larger bench to resolve the controversy as to whether Sec. 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act shall prevail as against Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. or not.

(2). The above criminal misc. petition was listed before a Division Bench of this Court which dismissed the matter on 14.2.2001. Thus, the controversy referred by Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur could not be resolved.

(3). A similar controversy is also involved in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 203/2001 which came up for hearing before Honble Mr. Justice N.P. Gupta on 7.5.2001. Adopting the reasoning in the reference order dated 3.12.1993 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 114/93, the learned Judge has directed this matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.

(4). When the matter was placed before the Chief Justice, it was placed before regular D.B. and that is how this matter has come up before this bench for consideration of reference.

(5). The point of law which arose in this case is as follows:-

``Whether Sec. 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 which prescribes the limitation of one year for initiating a prosecution will curtail the period of limitation of three years prescribed by Sec. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(6). Before proceeding further, it is useful to refer to certain facts of this case so that the case can also be decided on merits instead of remitting the matter back to the learned Single Judge.

(7). According to the petitioner - Gurcharan Singh, a case was foisted against him on 12.9.94. The challan of the same was filed in the court at Sri Ganganagar on 11.9.95 in absence of the petitioner. The papers were placed before the Additional Chief Judi- cial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur on 5.12.95. The learned Magistrate heard the arguments for taking cognizance and he came to the conclusion that the challan has been filed beyond the limitation prescribed by law. He was of the opinion that no cognizance could be taken after one year of the offence and, therefore, on 5.12.95, no cognizance could be taken in the matter as the same is beyond the period of limitation. The State Govt. preferred a revision petition which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur as Criminal Revision Petition no. 45/97. The revisional court by its order dt.23.3.2000 has set aside the order passed by the trial Judge and has come to a conclu- sion that the period of limitation cannot be taken to be one year but it should be considered to be three years and in view of that, he accepted the revision petition and directed the lower court to take cognizance in the matter and proceed further for further proceedings in the matter. The present revision was filed by the petitioner herein.

(8). It was submitted that the order passed by the revisional authority is absolutely incorrect, improper and illegal and that the limitation shall be considered to be which is given u/Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. and shall not be considered to be a limitation prescribed u/Sec. 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. It was further submitted that the limitation prescribed in the special law i.e. Rajasthan Excise Act, excludes the prevalence of the general law in such matters namely Code of Criminal Procedure which cannot prevail and the prosecution cannot take benefit of general provision and, therefore, the revisional court cannot direct the trial Magistrate to take cognizance as has been done by the revisional Court.

(9). As noticed earlier, when the matter was listed before Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur (as he then was) in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 114/93, the learned Judge after referring to the decision given in the case of Kunj Bihari Lal and Jagdish vs. State of Rajas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document