This petition under section 182 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent. The point raised in the petition is short one.

Facts briefly narrated are that a complaint was filed by the Municipal Council, Dabra, against the petitioner on 31.1.1997 under Municipalities Act, 1961, with the allegation that he was liable to pay terminal tax as per Terminal Tax (Assessment and Collection) on the Goods Exported under M.P. Municipal Limits Rules, 1987. The petitioner was directed to pay the terminal tax but neither it furnished the return nor deposited the amount of terminal tax. It was further prayed that the petitioner be punished for the offence. The petitioner raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that it did not commit any offence. It was also contended that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 468(2) of the CrPC. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments took cognizance condoning the delay, hence this petition.

The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance and condoning the delay because according to the claim of the respondent itself, the default in payment of terminal tax was shown to be of September, 1994 and the complaint was filed on 31.1.97. He urged that in view of provisions of section 468 CrPC, the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance on the expiry of period of limitation i.e. six months from the date of commission of crime in view of the bar contained in section 468(2) (a) of CrPC. In support of his contention, he has relied upon 1990 (II) MPWN 78 = 1990 MPLJ 379 [Municipal Council, Shivpuri v. Radha Bai].

The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the demand was actually made on 6.6.96 when the information was received from the office of Central Excise and as such the complaint filed on 31.1.1997 was within limitation in view of provision of section 313 of the M.P. Municipalities Act. The learned counsel has relied upon 1993(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 12 [Municipal Council, Guna v. Ghasi Lal], the decision of the Division Bench, in which the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has been over-ruled.

As said above, the only point raised relates to the entertainment of the complaint. According to the petitioner, no cognizance could be taken as the complaint was filed beyond limitation. According to the learned counsel, the cause of action, if any, had arisen in the year 1994 and as such the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in the year 1997, A copy of the complaint has been filed by the petitioner and it is Annexure P/1. It shows that it was presented under section 127 of Nagarpalika Adhiniyam, 1961. It was filed with the allegation that the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra did not give the information inspite of several letters sent from time to time from 26.10.95 to 9.4.96. The information was given on 6.6.96 by the Kendriya Utpadan Shulka Centre, Dabra. It was further alleged that the information of the fact that the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra, send the sheera and sugar outside the Nagar Palika was given by Kendriya Utpadan Shulka Dabra on 6.6.1996, hence the complaint was within time. In this view of the matter, according to the averments made in the complaint irrespective of the fact that the dues related to prior period, the intimation that the goods were sent outside the limit of Nagarpalika was given on 6.6.1996. Hence it has to be taken that the limitation will run from that date. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the complaint was not presented within six months, cognizance could not be taken in view of section 468(2) (a) of CrPC as the case falls within this provision. The learned counsel supported this contention as per decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 1990(II) MPWN 7