B. R. ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS petition under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending against him and his other fourteen partners in the court of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh.
(2.) M/s. Bhim Sen and party was granted liquor contract for the retail sale of liquor for Group-Shops at Suratgarh, Raisinghnagar and Padampur for the period from April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1989. The petitioner is one of the partners of M/s Bhim Sen and party. According to the prosecution, the main shop of M/s Bhim Sen and Party situated at Anoopgarh, was searched on Aug. 9, 1988 by the Excise Inspector Suratgarh, and at the time of search, 155 bottles of simple liquor and eight bottles of rose-liquor were found. This stock was less than the required stock and according to the Excise Inspector, the petitioner, thus, contravened the condition for the liquor licence as he was required to keep in stock atleast 15 days' stock. Though the inspection was made on August 9, 1988, but the charge-sheet with respect to this offence was filed in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, against sixteen persons, who are partners of M/s Bhim Sen and party on August 3, 1989. The learned Magistrate, after looking-into the challan papers took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 58 (c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence under sec. 58 (c) of the Rajasthan Excise Act is punishable with a fine of Rs. 500/- only and according to Sec. 468, Cr. P. C, to the limitation for taking the cognizance has been provided. The period of limitation for taking the cognizance in the cases where the offence is punishable with fine only is only of six months which has been provided under sub-sec. 2 (a) of sec. 468 Cr. P. C. It is not in dispute that the alleged offence in the present case was committed on August 9, 1988, but the charge-sheet was presented in the Court on August 3, 1989, and on the basis of that charge-sheet, the Court took the cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on August 3, 1989 itself. The learned Magistrate, as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P. C, was entitled to take cognizance only upto February 8, 1989 and by that time, even the charge-sheet was not submitted in the Court. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives power to the Court to extend the period of limitation in certain cases if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. In the present case, no application has been filed by the prosecution before the learned lower Court for the extension of the time, nor has the Court, at the time of taking the cognizance, mentioned in its order that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice The provisions of limitation for taking the cognizance have been engrafted in the Act with a view to protect the accused-persons from unnecessary harassment on account of delayed prosecution. Section 468 Cr. P. C. provides the period of limitation, as the legislative policy behind it, and has been introduced for the protection of the rights of accused-persons and it prohibits the Court from taking the cognizance of an offence of the categories specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the expiry of the period of limitation. The Section thus, prohibits the prosecution from presenting the belated complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance over Sub-Section (2) of Section 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which deals with the cognizance of the offence. According to Sub-Section (2) of section 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, except with the special sanction of the State Government, the Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless the prosecution is instituted with in a year after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. This Sub-section though does prescribe any period of limitation and it says that after the expiry of the period of one year, the Magistrate shall not take cognizance of any offence unless a special sanction for the same has been granted by the State Government but the provision of section. 468 Cr. P. C. has an over-riding effect, it states with words "except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance. . . . . . . . . . . . . " The law relating to the limitation for taking cognizance of the offences as provided in section 468 Cr. P. C. will be applicable in the present case and not the limitation as provided in Section 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The Code of Criminal Procedure is a latter law and that too enacted by the Parliament. It provides limitation for taking the cognizance in the matters covered by Section 468 Cr. P. C. and leaves no exception. Firstly, the law regarding the limitation provided under Section 468 Cr. P. C. is made by the Central Government and, therefore, the State law will yield to the Central Law, and, secondly, the latter law will prevail over the earlier law. In this view of the matter, the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution after the expiry of period of the limitation, and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate, deserve to be quashed. In the result, this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate. Anoopgarh, in Criminal Case No. 483 of 1989 are quashed. .;