Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.469 – Commencement of period of limitation – Complaint of misbranding – Samples drawn from dealer on 10.02.2011 and sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory on 17.02.2011; and the report of analysis was received on 14.03.2011 – Appellant-manufacturer was served with show cause notice – Request made on 15.04.2011 for reanalysis of second sample – Second sample sent on 02.05.2011 and re-analysis report was received on 09.12.2011 – Complaint filed on 25.03.2014 – Whether complaint was time-barred – Held: The report of analysis received from the Laboratory on 14.03.2011 itself indicated misbranding – Thus period of limitation within meaning of s. 469 commenced from 14.03.2011 only – Complaint was time barred – Limitation – Delay/latches – Insecticides Act, 1968 – ss. 3(k)(i),17, 18, 29 and 33.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants are sought to be prosecuted on the ground of misbranding of the insecticide, i.e., Trizophos 40% E.C. It is the allegation in the complaint that upon analysis of the sample, same was found to contain active ingredient to the extent of 34.70% only as against the labelled declaration of 40%. Thus, it is a case of ‘misbranding’ within the meaning of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act and selling of such misbranded item is in violation of Sections 17, 18, and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Act. From a reading of Section 29, it is clear that the maximum punishment for such offence, if it is first offence, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both. For a second and subsequent offence, the punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than & ANR.
fifteen thousand rupees which may extend to seventy-five thousand rupees, or with both. Section 468 of Cr.PC prohibits taking cognizance of an offence after the lapse of period of limitation. As per sub-section (2)(c) thereof, the period of limitation is three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Section 469 of Cr.PC deals with the ‘commencement of the period of limitation’. As per the said provision, the period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence on the date of offence or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier. [Para 9][357-C-H]
2. In the present case, it is not in dispute, the complainant received the report of analysis on 14.03.2011 from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana and the complaint was lodged on 25.03.2014 which was beyond a period of three years from 14.03.2011. The only submission for the State was that further report from the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory was received on 09.12.2011 which is the conclusive evidence of the facts, as such, the complaint is within the period of limitation. Such submission is not convincing. As per the procedure prescribed under the Statute, i.e., Insecticide Act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder, the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana was the competent authority to which the sample was sent on 17.02.2011, after drawing on 10.02.2011, and the report of analysis was received on 14.03.2011, as such the said date is said to be the crucial date for commencement of period of limitation. By virtue of the said report received on 14.03.2011 which states that the active ingredient of the sample was only to the extent 34.70% as against the labelled declaration of 40%, it is clear that it is the date of offence allegedly committed by the accused. Merely because a further request is made for sending the sample to the Central Insecticide Testing Laboratory, as contemplated under Section 24(4) of the Act, which report was received on 09.12.2011, receipt of such analysis report on 09.12.2011 cannot be the basis for commencement of limitation. The report of analysis received from the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 14.03.2011 itself indicates misbranding, as stated in the complaint, thus, the period of limitation within the meaning of Section 469, Cr.PC commences from 14.03.2011 only. In that view of the matter, the complaint filed is barred by limitation and allowing the proceedings to go on, on such complaint, which is ex facie barred by limitation is nothing but amounts to abuse of process of law. [Para 10][358-A-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.