The absence of sanction for prosecution does not amount to an acquittal, and there is no bar to filing a supplementary charge-sheet after obtaining sanction.

( 1 ) A proceeding under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act is pending against the revisionist accused and cognizance has been taken by the court on 13-6-1978 on a fresh charge-sheet. The applicant later preferred an application on 21-8-82 before the trial court that no charge can be framed against the applicant revisionist and that application was rejected by the trial court on 1-9-1982 directing that a charge under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act be framed against the revisionist. The revisionist has come forward in this revision feeling aggrieved from the same.

( 2 ) THE stand of the revisionist is that the Magistrate had taken cognizance regarding the same matter on charge-sheet No. 40 filed by the police on 2-3-1974 and ultimately as sanction under Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act was wanting, the case was dropped amounting to his discharge, so any fresh cognizance on any supplementary charge-sheet could not be taken. It was also maintained that the earlier discharge of the applicant on 8-9. 1977 bars the present trial.

( 3 ) DURING arguments it was further urged that under Section 173 (8), Criminal Procedure Code a supplementary charge-sheet could be given only on discovery of any new evidence and further investigation could be carried, while in this case there is no fresh evidence.

( 4 ) THE order passed earlier is quoted in the application preferred before the Magistrate in the present case and runs as follows: In this case charge-sheet was submitted without compliance of Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, the cognizance taken is bad ab initio. The proceedings are dropped. The surety bonds and personal bonds of the accused are cancelled. The accused are released. From the perusal of the grounds of revision itself it will be borne out that the proceedings were dropped earlier for lack of any sanction under section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act. In fact, the very cognizance which was taken was bad when there was no sanction and so the proceedings were dropped later rightly-But that would not amount to an acquittal for the offence and there will be no bar to file a supplementary charge-sheet after obtaining sanction. In fact, the earlier cognizance was itself bad when sanction was wanting. The charge-sheet is dated 11-11-77 and this charge-sheet has been given as a supplementary charge-sheet after obtaining the sanction. The sanction itself would be a further evidence within the meaning of Section 173 (8) Of the Criminal Procedure Code in the sense that it is the condition precedent for launching any prosecution. If earlier any proceeding is dropped for want of sanction. it will not operate as a bar to launch a fresh prosecution after such sanction has been obtained.

( 5 ) I, therefore, do not find any force in this revision and I also hold that as the new charge- sheet (which is termed as supplementary charge-sheet or fresh charge-sheet) has been submitted after obtaining fresh material, which is condition precedent for launching the prosecution, there is no bar to the taking of cognizance by the Magistrate.

( 6 ) IT was urged that the offence is alleged to have been committed long long ago, so prosecution should not proceed. I am unable to uphold such stand. Unless the cognizance is barred by limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code lapse of time would not weigh. In the present case it is not shown that the prosecution has become time barred under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 7 ) I, therefore, do not find any force in this revision and it is dismissed. The stay order is vacated and lower court records be sent back immediately and the Magistrate should expedite the case without any unreasonable delay. Revision dismissed

.