Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 Date of decision: 15.4.2009 State of Haryana ......Petitioner Versus N.K.Singla .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. Ms.Uma Gupta, Advocate for Mr.K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, whereby the order dated 3.1.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, summoning the present respondent was set aside. Case of the complainant, in brief, as noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in para 2 of the impugned order, is reproduced herein below:- Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 2 “Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the petitioner was posted as General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat during the period w.e.f. January 1995 to March 1996. During his posting, Ved Parkash, Helper, was appointed by him vide order No.1208, dated 18.1.1995 in Haryana Roadways, Panipat and his appointment was till 20.4.1995. One Brij Bhushan was also appointed by him as Helper vide Order No.6017 dated 17.4.1995. But the services of both these Helpers were terminated vide Order No.8137 dated 22.5.1995 as their services were no longer required. However, Brij Bhushan was appointed as Peon on daily wages w.e.f. 24.5.1995 vide Order No.8194 of that date by the petitioner while holding the post of the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat. As per the allegations against the petitioner, he had appointed both the aforesaid persons as Helpers and, subsequently, he had also re-appointed Brij Bhushan as Peon as detailed out above but as per record, he had not sent any requisition to the concerned Employment Exchange before appointing the said Helpers and thus, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 read with Rules made thereunder.” Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 3 Learned State counsel has submitted that the delay in filing the complaint had been duly explained by the State. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint in question was filed after more than four years of the commission of alleged offence by the petitioner and hence, the impugned order had been rightly passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. In the present case, the respondent was posted as General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Panipat w.e.f. January 1995 to March 1996. During this period, he appointed certain persons as helpers without sending any requisition to the concerned employment exchange before appointing the said helpers. The respondent had, thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'). As per the said Act, punishment of fine has been provided under Section 7 of the Act. As per Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub Section 2 after the expiry of period of limitation. The period of limitation as per sub Section 2 in case of an offence which is punishable with fine only is six months. As per Section 473 Cr.P.C. in case the delay has been duly explained then the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 4 In the present case, the alleged offence had been committed w.e.f. January 1995 to March 1996. However, the complaint was filed in the Court on 14.6.2000 after a long delay. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat has observed that the Director of Employment, Haryana, Chandigarh had directed the concerned officer vide order dated 4.5.1999 to institute prosecution against the respondent but even then the prosecution was not launched immediately after the issuance of the said letter. There was no explanation with regard to delay in filing the complaint. In the absence of any reasons for condonation of delay, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat could not summon the respondent as the complaint on the face of it was time barred. A perusal of the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat dated 3.1.2005 also reveals that the delay in filing the complaint was not condoned. Relying on the statement of the complainant and the documents placed on record, respondent was ordered to be summoned. In these circumstances, the reasons given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, while setting aside the summoning order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat dated 3.1.2005, are sound reasons. Cognizance of the complaint which was on the face of it time barred could not be taken by the Magistrate without extention of period of limitation. I have also gone through the complaint filed by the State. No request for extention of period of limitation explaining the delay in Criminal Revision No.2233 of 2006 5 lodging the complaint was made. In these circumstances, no interference is called for as the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 15, 2009 anita