K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, by which the petitioners' revision against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur dated 7 -8 -81 was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application briefly stated are that on 7 -7 -80 the competent authority under the Rajasthan Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') filed a complaint against the present petitioners 'before the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur alleging that the petitioners who were bound to file their returns under Section 6(1) of the Act by 6 -10 -76,' had failed to furnish the same and had later furnished incomplete returns on 28 -2 -78 and had thus committed an offence punishable under Section 38(1) of the Act. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of this offence by his order dated 7 -7 -80. The petitioners filed a revision against that order before this Court. One of the grounds raised in the revision was that the learned Magistrate did not consider the question of limitation for taking: cognizance of the offence. This Court observed that this matter of limitation -can properly be gone into by the trial court and, therefore, the order dated' 7 -7 -80 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the learned Magistrate to decide the question of limitation and thereafter to proceed in accordance with law. After the remand, the competent authority moved an application; before the court for permission to amend the complaint in order to -incorporate the date of knowledge which was sought to be made starting, point of limitation. In para 8 of this application it was stated that on 16 -5 -77,. for the first time the Asst. Engineer (Ceiling) expressed the possibility that the petitioners may be holding more than the prescribed limit of land and, therefore, a notice under Section 38 of the Act may be issued to them. The competent authority thereupon wanted to get the fact whether the returns have been filed or not to be verified because without that the commission of the offence could not be ascertained. It was further mentioned that this could not be ascertained till 16 -12 -77 on which date the Asst. Engineer again directed to issue of notice. Thereupon the papers were put upon 2 -1 -78 and on that date notices were issued to the petitioners and the petitioners also on that date asked for 15 days time to submit the returns. It was further mentioned that the petitioners then, filed incomplete returns on 28 -2 -78 and failed to complete them despite notice -In these circumstances, it was contended in the application that the commission of offence came to the knowledge of the competent authority for the first time on 21 -7 -78 or on 6 -1 -78 and, therefore, the complaint was within time.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties the learned Magistrate by his order dated 7 -8 -81 found that the period of limitation in this case started running against the complainant from 2 -1 -78 when the notice under Section 38 of the Act was issued because before that the competent authority could not have found out whether the offence had been committed by the petitioners or not and, therefore cognizance could be taken on 7 -7 -80. He also was of the opinion that in view of Section 38(2) of the Act the offence under Section 38(1) was a continuing offence and, therefore, also cognizance could not be said to be barred as admittedly returns were filed only on 28 -2 -78. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioners filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, which came to be heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur and the same was dismissed by order dated 27 -10 -83. Hence this application.;