1980 Supreme(MP) 565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Chandra Pal Singh, J.
Madhukar – Petitioner
Versus
Nareshchandra Goyal – Respondent
Cr. Revn. No. 325 of 1979 (I)
Decided On : 23-04-1980

Headnote:(1) Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) – S. 39 (1), 44(2) and 43 (6) – information required under section 39 (1) not furnished – nature of offence – what is – whether it is a continuous one – period of limitation as provided under section 44 (2) – applicability of – whether delay may be condoned under Cr. P.C – Criminal P.C., 1974 – S. 473.

       (2) Criminal P.C., 1974 – S. 473 – applicability of – whether it applies to the offences made punishable under special law – Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M. P.) – S. 39 (1), 44 (2) and 43 (6).

        Short Note

       1. The facts giving rise to this revision petition in short are that the non – applicant, who is an Authorised Officer appointed for controlling the letting of premises under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act particularly under section 39 of the Act by a special order required the petitioner who is a landlord of house No.9, Juna Tukoganj, Indore, to give information to him in writing regarding that house. The petitioner failed to do so and this led the non – applicant to prefer a complaint under section 43 (6) of the Act, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore on 20 – 3 – 1978. The non – applicant along with the complaint also submitted an application under section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code to condone the delay. The Magistrate condoning the delay proceeded to deal with the case when on 27 – 6 – 1979 the petitioner presented an application drawing the attention of the Court to section 44 (2) of the Act that the cognizance could not have been taken of the alleged offence. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties considering that he was incompetent to review the order already passed where by his predecessor had already taken cognization of the offence, dismissed the petitioner's application.

       Held : Clearly in view of the specific provision contained in section 44 (2) of the Act, which is a particular or special legislation, there is, in my judgment, implied prohibition for attracting the provisions of section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a general enactment. In the case of Rohtas v. State of Haryana (AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1839), their Lordship while considering the provision of section 4 of the Haryana Children Act, 1974, laid down that the terms of that section had carved out a clear exception to the provision of section 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, the terms of Sec. 473 Criminal Procedure Code laying down as follows "Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provision of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstance of the case that the delay has teen properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice" apply only to the foregoing provision contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They Dot as such apply to the provisions contained in the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act.

       2. The question for decision still remains whether the complaint in question had been presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The violation complained of was 'the non – supplying of information by the petitioner, which was required of him to be given in writing regarding house No.9 Juna Tukoganj, Indore by the non – applicant. The petitioner has even till today not supplied that information. It, therefore, follows that it is a continuing wrong on the petitioner's Fart for which cause of action accrues from day today. Thus without recourse to the provision contained under section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, which clearly were not applicable in this case, the wrong committed by the petitioner being a continuous one, the complaint even though lodged on 20 – 3 – 1978 vas not time barred. AIR 1979 SC 1839, relied on Revision dismissed.