K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) GOPAL Krishan petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nabha dated 30th June, 1983, granting permission for prosecution under section Act, 1961, as being without jurisdiction and against law.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent Neelam Sandhir, the wife of the petitioner, filed a petition in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nabha, on 23rd June, 1983 for the grant of permission to prosecute the petitioner under sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The section (sanction) was granted by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 30th June, 1983. A copy of the same has been annexed to this petition. The solitary contention raised by Mr. Achhra Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the sanction for prosecution could not be granted as the action had become time-barred. Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before its amendment by the State of Punjab read as under :- "7. Cognizance of offences - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - (a) no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act; (b) no court shall take cognizance of any such offence except on a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence; (c) it shall be lawful for a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act on any person convicted of an offence under this Act." Now in its application to the State of Punjab section 7 as substituted reads as under :- "7. Cognizance of offences - Notwithstanding any thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - (1) no court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act; (2) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under sections 3, 4 and 4-B except upon a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence, by same person aggrieved by the offence : * * * * * * *"
(3.) A comparative reading of the section as it stood before the amendment and after the amendment would clearly show that in offence under section 6 of the Act has been taken out of the purview of the limitation which existed earlier to the amendment. Now, limitation has been prescribed only for offences punishable under sections 3, 4 and 4-B of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As far as the proceedings and the prosecution under section 4 of the Act are concerned, I am of the view that the contention of Mr. Achhra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, must prevail, as the action under Section 4 of the Act is clearly time-barred. Mr. Ujagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, has very fairly conceded this proposition. However, as far as the prosecution under section 6 of the Act is concerned, the State Government has by the amending provision fixed no limitation for prosecution for an offence punishable under section 6 of the Act. Since there is a provision for limitation in this special Act, i.e., the Dowry Prohibition Act, the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable, that being an general Act. Consequently, I quash the sanction granted for prosecution for an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the sanction for prosecution for an offence under section 6 of the Act is quite valid and is not liable to be quashed. This petition thus partly succeeds to the extent indicated above. Petition Partly Succeeds.;