B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) THIS miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated February 22, 1988, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Judge dismissed the revision -petition filed by the petitioner.
(2.) THE Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Pilibanga filed a complaint against the petitioner Under Sections 4(2), 17 and 28(1)(2) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961, in the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, on June 16, 1979. The learned Magistrate, by his order dated June 15, 1981, took cognizance against the petitioner and issued process. After the service of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the learned lower Court and preferred a revision petition against the order dated June 15, 1981. This revision petition was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, who, by his order dated February 22, 1988, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, by holding that the objections raised by the petitioner can be decided by the trial Court itself and directed the petitioner to raise all these objections before the trial Court: but he prima facie was of the opinion that a prima facie case to proceed -with against the petitioner is made -out. It is against this order that the present petition Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(3.) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petition is barred by time. According to the petitioner, the alleged contravention was made between the period from June 8, 1976 to October 5, 1977, for which the petitioner is being prosecuted. The offence is punishable with three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine and in such matters, the cognizance as per the provisions of Section 468(2) Cr. P.C. can be taken within the period of one year. As the cognizance in the present case was taken on June 15, 1979, it is clearly barred by time. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that even from a bare reading of the complaint, no case against the petitioner has been made -out and, therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed. It has, also, been contended that it has not been proved that the petitioner was a partner of the firm and they were required to take the licence as provided under the Act, or the Rules. As the petitioner was not the licensee, therefore, he cannot be prosecuted and punished. Certain other grounds were, also, taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 have supported the order passed by the learned lower Court.;