( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 378 (4), Cr. P. C. seeking leave to file an appeal from an order acquitting the accused/respondents of the offence under Section 187 (8) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961.

( 2 ) ON 1-10-1981, the Municipal Council, Shivpuri filed a complaint complaining of construction without permission by the accused/respondents on 5-10-1989. The trial court acquitted the accused/respondents holding that an offence under Section 187 (8) of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 being punishable with fine only extending to Rs. 1,000/-, it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on expiry of period of 6 months from the date of commission thereof in view of bar enacted by Section 468 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the complainant seeking leave to file an appeal has contended that in so far as the offences open to prosecution under the provisions the M. P. Municipalities Act are concerned, S. 313 thereof provides a period of limitation of 12 months from the date of commission thereof which provision being founded in a special enactment would override the provisions contained in a general enactment like Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and as such the trial court was not justified in acquitting the accused/respondents upon an erroneous view that it was debarred from taking cognizance.

( 4 ) IT will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions herein:- code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:-"468. Bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (I) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-Section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) Six months, if any offence is punishable with fine only; etc. . . . . etc. . . . . "m. P. Municipalities Act, 1961:-"313 Council may prosecute:- (1) The Council, the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of Class I Municipality and the Council or any other officer authorised by the Council in this behalf in the case of other classes of Municipality may direct - (i) any prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder; (ii) proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any persons offending against the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder; and (iii) that the expenses of such prosecutions or other proceedings be paid out of the Municipal fund. "provided that no prosecution for an offence"under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be instituted except - (i) within 12 months next after the date of commission of such offence; (ii) if such date is not known or the offence is a continuing one, within twelve months next after the date on which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to notice of the Councilor of any officer or servant whose duty it is to report such offence to the Council. (2) Any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided be, instituted before any Magistrate, and every fine or penalty imposed or under or by virtue of this Act or any rule or bye-law thereunder, and any compensation, expenses, charges or damages for the recovery of which no special provision is otherwise made in this Act may be recovered on application to any Magistrate by the distress or sale of any movable property within the limits of his jurisdiction belonging to the person from whom the money is claimed. "( 5 ) A reading in juxtaposition of the two provisions indicate that there is no conflict between the two Sections 313 of the M. P. Municipalities Act speaks of 'institution of a prosecution' while Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure speaks of 'taking cognizance by a Court; Section 313 of Municipalitie