The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec.409 of the Indian Penal Code and the limitation period for proceedings under Sec.406 as per Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

K. P. S. Sandhu, J.

1. Sawan Ram petitioner has filed this petition under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer that the charge framed against him under sec. 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, vide his order dated 5th May, 1981, ill case first information report No.214 of 17th August, 1977, at Police Station, Thanesar, and all other proceedings thereunder be quashed. The facts which gave rise to this petition are as under:

2. The petitioner was employed as a salesman in the Central Cooperative consumer Store Ltd. , Kurukshetra. Shri 0. p. Gupta, was the Chairman of the Society and Shri S. P. Gupta was the General Manager thereof. The petitioner med to give his indents to the General Manager for the goods for the store, which bore signature of the petitioner and the Manager used to distribute the goods to the Salesman according to the indent. Entry of the goods thus distributed used to be made in the ledger liability register of the Salesman and the signature of the Salesman used to be obtained in the ledger liability register. On phyisical verification of the store, made through the Cooperative Societies Consumer Store Department, a shortage of Rs.21,506,09 Paise was detected. This shortage related to the period between 31st December, 1970 to 31st December, 1971. An amount of Rs.995/out of the pay of the petitioner and Rs.500.00 , which were lying as security with the society were adjusted against the amount found due from the petitioner. Shri J. P. Bhardwaj, Inspector, Co-operative Societies. Karnal, was appointed the liquidator of the Society on 11th June, 1975. A case against the petitioner under the aforesaid Sec. was registered on 17th August, 1977, at Police Station, Thanesar, on the basis of a report made by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kurukshetra.

3. The contention raised by Mr. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold. In the first instance he has submitted that from the facts as revealed in the first information report, the case does not fall within the mischief of Sec.409 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Jatindar Sharma, learned counsel for the State of Haryana has very fairly conceded that the petitioner is neither a public servant, nor a Bankar, merchant, factor, broker attorney or agent within the meaning of Sec.409 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the charge under Sec.409 of the said Code cannot be sustained. The second contention raised by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the proceedings under Sec.406 of the Indian Penal Code are hit by Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure these having been initiated after the period of limitation as prescribed in the aforesaid Section. On the other band, Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the State of Haryana, bas submitted that since the Liquidator was appointed in 1975, and he learnt of this shortage in 1975, so the case was registered within the limitation as envisaged by Sec.469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because the Liquidator came to know of the commission of the offence on 11th June, 1975. But I do not find any substance in the submission made by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the State, as it is in the first information report itself that the Executive Committee of the Society gave a registered notice to the petitioner for depositing the aforesaid amount in the year 1972, and since the petitioner did not turn up on his duty, his services were terminated on 1st April 1971. So it is evident that the authorities had the knowledge of the commission of the offence by the petitioner in the year 1972. The first information report, as noted earlier, was registered in the year 1977. So clearly the action against the petitioner is hit by the limitation as provided by Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, As a result I am left with no option but to quash the charge and all other proceedings in consequence of the first information