THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3886 of 2009 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalli in Chittoor District. 2 Petitioner herein is accused No.4 in the aforesaid case in which charge sheet is filed by the respondent-police in Cr.No.86/97-98 registered for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). 3 When the Excise officials were conducting route watch on 09.09.1998, they found one Commander Jeep owned by the petitioner who is A.4 and driven by A.1 while it was carrying 12 bags of Kerala Malt Whisky without transport permits as required under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under. On the aforesaid allegation that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 34(a) of the said Act, Cr.No.86/97-98 was registered, arraying the petitioner as fourth accused and after completion of investigation, the police filed a final report into the Court below on 06.04.2005 which was numbered as C.C.No.123 of 2005. 4 In this Criminal Petition, it is mainly contended that the punishment for the offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act itself is maximum of three years imprisonment and the Court below has taken cognisance of the said offence even after the expiry of limitation period in view of the bar contained in Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. 5 In this case, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 34 (a) of the Act. The maximum punishment for the said offence is imprisonment for a period of three years. In view of the provisions contained under Section 468 (2) of Cr.P.C. the period of limitation to file the final report would be only three years. In view of Section 469 of Cr.P.C, the period of limitation starts from the date of offence. From the above said provisions, it is clear that the very taking of cognisance by the learned Magistrate is after the expiry of limitation as contemplated under Sections 468 (2) (c) of Cr.P.C. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalli in Chittoor District are hereby quashed in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. ---------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 14.12.2011 Kvsn