TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by limitation. Thus it is not necessary to go to the next question argued on behalf of the appellants that the court below was in error in invoking Section 473 of the Code for extending the period of limitation. Appeal dismissed. - CRL.A. 1251 OF 2003 - - - Dated:- 8-10-2003 - N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND P. BISHESHWAR SINGH, JJ. JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order made by the High Court of Judicature: Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad on 18.2.2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). The prayer of the appellants in the said petition was to quash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a delay, the same is condonable under Section 473 of the Code because the said delay occurred due to the time taken by the Government in granting sanction which was excludable while computing the period of limitation. Mr. R.K. Anand, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the High Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the Notification issued by the Government of A.P. dated 16.9.1963 issued in G.O.M.S. No.2515 Health, also applied to all Drug Inspectors in the State of A.P. According to him, that Notification was applicable to the Drug Inspectors of Telangana area of the State of A.P. only and the Drug Inspectors of Vijayawada which is outside the Telangana area, could not have assumed the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of which complaints are filed after the expiry of limitation mentioned in Section 468 of the Code.The use of the words Bar of taking cognizance is not with reference to the act of the court in taking cognizance but is with reference to taking cognizance of the case which is barred by limitation under the Act. In support of this contention learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in Rashmi Kumar (Smt) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 2 SCC 397). We have perused the notification of the Government of A.P. dated 16.9.1963 issued under the Central Act of 1954. As held by the High Court, in our opinion too, the Notification in question is issued in furtherance of the 1954 Act and on the directions issued by the Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Telangana area of A.P. State, with no stretch of imagination we can conclude that the Government of A.P. intended to confine the operation to Telangana area of A.P. State. We are also of the opinion that giving a narrow interpretation confining the operation of the Notification to a part of Andhra Pradesh would defeat the public purpose for which this notification is issued, therefore, such argument which would not subserve the public purpose in the interpretation of a notification, should be avoided, hence, we are in agreement with the finding of the High Court that the notification in question is applicable to the entire State of A.P. and the complainant in this case had the necessary authority to seize and detain any material which would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de apply to delay in instituting the prosecution or to delay in taking cognizance. As noted above according to learned counsel for the appellants the limitation prescribed under the above Chapter applies to taking of cognizance by the concerned court therefore even if a complaint is filed within the period of limitation mentioned in the said Chapter of the Code, if the cognizance is not taken within the period of limitation the same gets barred by limitation. This argument seems to be inspired by the Chapter-Heading of Chapter XXXVI of the Code which reads thus : Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences . It is primarily based on the above language of the Heading of the Chapter the argument is addressed on behalf of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed and if need be after excluding such time which is legally excludable. This in our opinion clearly indicates that the limitation prescribed is not for taking cognizance within the period of limitation, but for taking cognizance of an offence in regard to which a complaint is filed or prosecution is initiated beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Code. Apart from the statutory indication of this view of ours, we find support for this view from the fact that taking of cognizance is an act of the court over which the prosecuting agency or the complainant has no control. Therefore a complaint filed within the period of limitation under the Code cannot be made infructuous by an act of court. The legal phrase actus curiae nem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
