Criminal Misc. No. M- 2484 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-2484 of 2008 Date of decision: November 17, 2009 Shamsher Singh @ Shera -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another -Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. SS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patti, where challan has been presented against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act. Brief facts of the case so far as material to the issue to be decided are that an FIR No. 122 was registered on 17-11-2003 under Section 61/1/14 of Punjab Excise Act at police station Harike, District Tarn Taran, wherein the allegation was that the petitioner was found in possession of ( two boxes ) 24 bottles of English liquor (licit liquor) bearing trade mark 'Director Special', without any permit near Satluj Marriage Palace, Harike, when he was stopped at a naka near the said marriage palace. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the FIR was Criminal Misc. No. M- 2484 of 2008 2 registered on 17-11-2003 while the challan was presented before the court of competent jurisdiction on 10-9-2007. According to Mr. Brar, the proceedings deserve to be quashed as challan was presented beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. He has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as Devinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab & another, 1983 CC Cases 464 (HC) and Pritam Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1981 PLR 634. Learned State counsel does not dispute the legal proposition laid down in the judgments reported in Devinder Kumar and Pritam Singh's cases (supra). I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act reads thus: “Except with the special sanction of the State Government no (Judicial Magistrate) [Substituted for the word “Magistrate” by Punjab Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1964 (25 of 1964] shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless the prosecution is instituted within a year after the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed”. Admittedly, in the instant case, FIR was registered on 17-11-2003 and the challan was presented after a lapse of three years (on 10-9-2007) i.e. beyond the period of limitation, prescribed in Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C. and in Section 75 of Punjab Excise Act. It is not disputed by learned State counsel that no application for condonation of delay in filing the challan was moved by the prosecution at any stage. There is no order on record to show that the limitation prescribed in the Act was ever condoned. I thus find force in the submission of Mr. Brar that prosecution in the case Criminal Misc. No. M- 2484 of 2008 3 cannot be sustained, challan having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Under the circumstances, the petition is allowed and FIR and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge November 17, 2009. 'ask' Refer to reporter: Yes/No.