IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7121 OF 2010 Between : Smt R.Kameswari and others. ....PETITIONERS A N D The State of A.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7121 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ,“Cr.P.C.) is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 18(1)(r) read with Section 3(x) 17(1)(a)( c) read with 3(k)(i) and 29 of the Insecticide Act,1968 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2004 at 11.00 A.M. respondent No.2 visited the premises of petitioner No.1 and drew the sample of HYQUIN 25% E.C. from the stock and divided the sample into three portions and sent one sample for analysis. As per the report of the Analyst, the sample does not confirm to protocol test. Therefore, the sample is misbranded and the said report was served on petitioner No.1 on 30.11.2004. Basing on the report, respondent issued show cause notices to all the petitioners and on the report of Analyst, respondent lodged the present complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised the following contentions: According to the prosecution case, the sample was taken on 28.10.2004 and the same was sent on 19.11.2004, for chemical analysis. The Analyst report was received by the officials on 30.11.2004 and whereas the complaint was lodged on 23.11.2007, before the concerned Court. Further, the Magistrate taken the cognizance in the year 2009. 4. As far as the provisions of Section 18 of the Act is concerned, minimum punishment is two years. The counsel further submitted that the said cognizance was taken by the trial Court beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 5. Section 468 Cr.P.C. reads as follows: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) 1[ For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.] 6. This Court perused the entire record and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that the present complaint is barred by limitation. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings in C.C.No.900 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, are hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO JULY 27, 2010. YVL