Criminal Revision No.308 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.308 of 1995 Date of Decision: 23.04.2008. State of Haryana .......Petitioner versus Relu Ram and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) On instructions from Narinder Singh, ASI, learned State Counsel states that main accused-Relu Ram has expired who was the owner of the Depot. In the present case, FIR No.455 was registered on 03.07.1990 under Sections 7/10/55 of the Essential Commodities Act and Sections 411/420/465/468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Chetral Faridabad. 16 accused were named in the FIR. Some of the accused have died. The learned Trial Court had discharged the accused on 08.10.1994. The learned Trial Court held in the present case that the challan has been filed after the expiry of six months without obtaining the permission of the Special Court. Reliance has been placed on State of Haryana versus Rajinder Singh, 1991(2) C.C.Cases 581 and Phalguni Datta versus State of West Bengal, 1991 Criminal Law Journal 565. In the present case, FIR was registered on 03.07.1990 and the challan was filed on 13.07.1992, after the expiry of more than two years. Therefore, the learned Trial Court held that no cognizance can be taken. Criminal Revision No.308 of 1995 2 The learned Trial Court also held that as per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, it cannot be assumed that Exhibits 1 to 28 were sent for chemical examination. The learned Trial Court further held that there is no prima facie evidence to hold that the accused have violated Clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil (Processing Supply and Distribution, Regulation) Order, 1987. The learned Trial Court further held that there is no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the offence under Sections 411/420/468 and 471 IPC. I have heard the learned State Counsel. It is stated that the report of Chemical Examiner was received late, therefore, delay of more than two years has been occurred in filing the challan. Where the preceding is summary in nature, the statute has prescribed a specific period, in which a challan is to be filed. In case, same is not done, it was incumbent upon the State to have sought the permission of the Special Court to present the challan. Even this was not done. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the reasoning given by the Special Court, Faridabad. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. April 23, 2008 (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) seema JUDGE