D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of his entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 04.05.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 47 of the Standard of Weight and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 in Complaint Case No. C -III 250/2009 by the C.J.M., Ranchi.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner raises short question of law that the cognizance of the offence under Section 47 of the said Act as taken by the C.J.M. against the Petitioner is barred under Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 47 of the Act deals with penalty for contravention of Section 24 which speaks, Whoever, being required by Section 24 to present any weight or measure for verification or re -verification, omits or fails, without any reasonable cause to do so, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and, for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine. Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure bars taking of cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation and Clause 2 of Section 468 lays down that the period of limitation shall be six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. There was no allegation that the Petitioner had in the past committed offence of similar natures much less alleged under Section 47 of the Act for contravention of Section 24. The offence as alleged in this case was committed on 30.09.2003 which was the date by which weight and measures instruments were to be verified by the competent authority of the Weight and Measures Department of the State Government but the cognizance of the offence was taken after long gap on 04.05.2009 beyond the period of limitation hence the cognizance of the offence alleged under Section 47 of the Weight and Measures (Enforcement Act, 1985 was barred by the law of limitation under Section 468(2)(I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) MR . Md. Hatim, learned A.P.P. did not dispute the provisions of law.;