D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) PETITIONERS by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing the order dated 5.7.1997 including the entire criminal proceeding pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.E. Case No. 506 of 1996, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act against the petitioners.
(2.) THE ground advanced in support of the prayer for quashing the impugned order of cognizance is that it is bad in law as because it was taken beyond the period of limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioners explains that as per the prosecution's case, a raid was conducted in the premises of the petitioners on 2.9.1996, in course of which, certain quantities of illicit excise materials was seized, inviting cause for prosecuting the petitioners for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. Learned Counsel submits that though the alleged date of occurrence is 2.9.1996, but the prosecution report was submitted after expiry of more than ten months and thereafter, cognizance for the offence was taken by the learned court below. Referring to the Section 96 of the Excise Act, learned Counsel explains that according to the provisions of Section 96 of the Act, cognizance could not have been taken by the learned court below, since prosecution was instituted beyond the period of limitation i.e. six months. Learned Counsel explains that as per provision under Section 96 of the Excise Act, there is embargo upon the court to take cognizance for the offence under Section 47(a) of the Act beyond the period of six months.
(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the State.;