S. P. Das Ghosh, J. - (1.) Two Rules have been obtained by the petitioner-complainant, the Corporation of Calcutta, against an order of discharge of the accused opposite parties by Sri P. Chanda, learned Metropolitan Magistrate and Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Calcutta, in cases Nos. 14D of of 1978 and 15D of 1978 under Section 16(l)(a)(i) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, as amended subsequently in 1964 and 1976. One of these Rules arises out of a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the revisional application. The other Rule is directed against the order of discharge of the accused opposite parties.
(2.) The Rule arising out of the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is first taken.up for hearing. The petitioner complainant has prayed for condoning the delay in filing the revisional application on 10-11-1980 after the order of discharge was passed by the learned Magistrate on 6-5-1980 on alleging that Ajit Kumar Basu, the Chi f Law Officer of the Corporation of Calcutta, who acted as the counsel for Corporation in all legal matters, had a wrong conception as to the period of limitation for revision. It is alleged that the Chief Law Officer was under a bona fiae mistake that the High Court might grant special leave to entertain the revisional application against the order of discharge after expiry of six months, as in the case of an Appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 378(5) Criminal Procedure Code. It is further alleged that his misconception in the matter was dispelled after the brief was handed over to the learned Advocate for the complainant-petitioner on 17-9-1980. The case of the petitioner is that after receipt of the brief on 17-9-1980, the learned Advocate for the petitioner wrote to the Chief Law Officer of the Corporation, held consultation with the Food lot hector on 23-9-1980 and with the Public Analyst on 26-9-1980 and held inspection of the lower court records on 1-10-1930 before holding final consultation with the Chief Law Officer on 3-10-1980 and that thereafter the revisional application was filed on 10-11-1980 after the closure of the Court with effect from 4-10-80 due to the annual vacation. The petitioner hat prayed for condoning the delay of 20 days in filing the revisional application on alleging that the limitation for filing the revisional application expired on 13-9.1980 after excluding the time required for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order of discharge.
(3.) The petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is registered by the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition.;