1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. 24179-M of 2008 Date of Decision: 7.9.2009 *** Master Gurmit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. TPS Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is seeking quashing of FIR No. 120 dated 30.10.2004, registered against him under Section 61 of Punjab Excise Act at Police Station Civil Lines, Batala and also the consequent proceedings taken therein including the charge-sheet dated 18.9.2008 and order dated 3.8.2009 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his application for not taking the cognizance of the offence in view of provisions of Section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. This is the third attempt of the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned FIR. Two earlier petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos. 50220 of 2006 and 8611 of 2008 have already been dismissed by this Court. Even the SLP preferred against order passed in Crl. Misc. No. 8611-M of 2008 had been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by dint of order dated 7.7.2008 passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 3989 of 2008. Now the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR on the ground that the cognizance of the offence taken by the Court below is barred by limitation in view of provisions contained in Section 75(2) of Excise Act as well as 468 Criminal Procedure Code, since the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed beyond the period of one year prescribed under the Act and that too without the sanction of the Government and a reference has been made to the cases of Pritam Singh & 2 Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab 1981 Crl. L.J. 545 and Devinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 1983 CC cases 464 (P&H). Section 75 of the Excise Act and Section 468 of the Code prohibit taking of cognizance by the Court for an offence after the period of limitation provided in the Scheme thereof, as per the period of sentence attached to a particular offence. But Section 473 of the Code provides exception that the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. In other words, the Court, subject to its satisfaction, can take cognizance of an offence irrespective of non-submission of the final report within the period of limitation. In the instant case, initially the final report, treating the case as untraced one, was submitted before the Court on 23.1.2005, just after about 3 months of the registration of the FIR, but as per directions of the Court, the matter was further investigated twice and ultimately the final report was submitted on 12.1.2008 upon which the cognizance was taken by the Court. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration, the Court below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 3.8.2009 by turning down his plea that the cognizance is barred by limitation. There is no dispute to the legal proposition, but what impressed this Court to intervene in Pritam Singh's case and Devinder Kumar's case (supra) was that the Court took cognizance of the matter on the report submitted by the police after the expiry of limitation period, without passing any order as required under Section 473 of the Code, which, as noticed above, is not the position herein. It cannot be said that the provisions of Section 75 of the Excise Act or 468 of the Code are attracted in this case. Even otherwise, a judicial notice of the allegations has been taken with the framing of charges against the petitioner. Hence no interference is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE September 7,2009 Jiten