IN THE HIGH COURT OF IKARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DRARWAD DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF APRIL, 201 1 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10070/2011 BETWEEN R. S. Manjunath S/o. R. R. Seetharamappa Age: 42 years, 0cc: Excise Contractor R/o. MIG-76, B-Block, Kalahalli Hudco Colony, Shimoga PETITIONER (By Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, Adv.) AND The State of Karnataka By Sub-Inspector Excise Inspector Honavvar, Dt. Karwar RESPONDENT (By Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.20 10 PASSED BY THE JMFC COURT, HONAVAR, IN C.C. NO.347/2010. THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE & REGISTERED THE CASE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is disposed of finally after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde and Sri. Anand K. Navalgimath. learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. In view of the short time involved, the main ground put forth by the petitioner’s Counsel Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde is that, in respect of the reference said to have taken place on 23.04.2003 when the shop of the petitioner was inspected by the Excise Sub Inspector and when the documents like account books and licences were not produced, FIR was filed alleging the commission of offence under Rule 18 and 2 1(3) of iKarnataka Excise Rules and Under Section 36 of the Karnataka Excise Act. The charge sheet was submitted after seven years. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention to the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 3 of Cr.P.C and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, submitted that the case of the petitioner fails under Sub-Section (2) Clause (b) of Section 468 of Cr.P.C and referring to the period of limitation which is on the date of offence as per Section 469 of Cr.P.C, submission made is that the charge sheet is filed beyond the limitation period and therefore, the trial Court could not have been taken cognizance. 4. The above submission put forward deserves to be accepted in view of the facts placed as above, which are not disputed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Filing of the charge sheet after seven long years is contrary to the aforementioned provisions and the trial Court could not have taken cognizance on filing of the charge sheet itself after seven years and as such, the trial Court was in error in taking cognizance beyond the limitation period. 4 5. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and all the proceedings pending on the file of the learned JMFC, Honavar in C.C.No.347/2010 taking cognizance and registering the case against the petitioner are all quashed. JUDGE gab k I p —