J.R.Chopra, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No, 1, Bikaner in Criminal misc. case 649 dated 28th June, 1977 whereby the learned Lower Court has held the complaints against accused persons as time-barred. It is alleged that Messrs. R.K. Godara and Co. and its working partner R. K. Godara were obliged to file an Annual Report in Form 3 under section 22(IV)(A) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1964 by 1st of February, 1975 for the year ending 31.12.1974. Return was not filed upto 1st of February, 1975. It amounted to an offence under section 22(A) of the above said Act and therefore the complaint was filed in the said Court on 1.8.197.5. The period of limitation prescribed for such a complaint is six months. Even as section 22(II)(B) of the Minimum Wages Act as also as per the provision of the sec. 468(2)(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to the learned Lower Court this period of six months expired on 3 1.7.1975 and therefore the complaint filed on 1.8.1975 is time barred. As per section 12 of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded. Thus, 1.12.1975 cannot be reckoned for the computing the period of limitation. Actually the accused persons were entitled to file the return till the mid night of the 1.2.1975. Thus the period of limitation started running against the state or the department concerned from 2.2.1975 and therefore the complaint filed on 1.8.1975 is within the period of six months and hence within limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent has frankly admitted this legal position and therefore this much is certain that the order of the learned lower court is against law and the complaint should not have-been dismissed as time barred.
(2.) The learned Counsel of the respondent has further submitted that it is a very technical offence i.e. a return was to be filed by a particular time. It was not filed by that particular time. The offence is punishable only with a fine of Rs. 500/-. The offence took place in the year 1975. More that 10 years have already elapsed and so this court in the direction should not interfere with this order and remand the case back for trial. In this respect my attention has drawn to a decision of this court in Allahabaksh v. State and others1, wherein M.L. Jam, J. held as under: The order of the learned Magistrate cannot be justified in the circumstances it was made. But the occurrence took place in the year 1978 and the matter is not of a serious nature (Offence under section 303 Indian Penal Code). It does not appear just to set aside the order of the acquittal and send the case for retrial.
(3.) This judgment was delivered on 23rd June of 1976 that is after seven years of the commission of the crime. In this case more than 10 years have already elapsed and therefore in such a petty matter which is not even punishable with sentence, I dont find it proper to interfere with the order of dismissal after a lapse of 10 years. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.;