ORDER
1. This criminal revision case is against the order holding that the complaint is not barred by limitation under S. 468, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is charged with an offence punishable under S. 24(1) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 for furnishing a declaration omitting Ac. 7.54 cents of land. The petitioner took the plea before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banaganapalle that the complaint is barred by limitation under S. 468, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate held that the period of limitation has to be computed from 13-12-1979 the date of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and negatived the contention.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the date on which the order was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal is not the relevant date for computing the period of limitation but the relevant date is as provided under Ss. 468 and 469, Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the heirarchy of authorities are seized of the matter under Land Reforms Act and the prosecution launched with reference to the failure to file a declaration is subject to the final order passed by the tribunal and as such the period has to be computed from the date of the Order of the tribunal.
3. To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to get at S. 468, Cr.P.C. which is as follows :-
“468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of and offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be –
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with the imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.”
Section 468, Cr.P.C. prescribes different periods of limitations relatable to the punishment for offences. S. 468, Cr.P.C. postulates that the period of limitation shall be three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not three years. Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act Provides that, in the event of filing false declaration, the punishment is for a term which may extend to two years. In view of punishment up to two years, clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S. 468, Cr.P.C. squarely applies to the situation. The computation of the period of limitation is provided under S. 469, Cr.P.C. which is as follows :-
“469(1) The Period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence, –
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or
(c) Where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police Officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier.
(2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.”
The date of the commission of offence or the knowledge of such offence to the aggrieved person or the concerned authority affords a starter for reckoning the period of limitation. The date of filing the declaration itself can be considered as the date of offence from which limitation may have to be computed under clause (a) but however clause (b) enables the reckoning of limitation from the date of knowledge of filing the declaration. The crucial consideration is whether knowledge has to be deduced from the date when the concerned authority is apprised of the factum of filing false declaration or the date of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. If the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal is considered, the complaint is within, the time prescribed under S. 468(1)(c) Cr.P.C. In view of constitution of the hierarchy of authorities under the Land Reforms Act, the order of the primary authority is not final and is subject to the orders that may be passed by the superior tribunals. The concept of knowledge is factual awareness or seized of the information and if the information as to non-disclosure leaps into the eyes of the concerned authority on perusal of the record, the date on which the authority is posted with the information is the crucial date for computing the limitation. The knowledge or awareness should not be stretched to the point of termination of proceedings before the tribunal in a situation where the concerned authority is aware of the situation. The accent in S. 469(b) is on the date of knowledge and this knowledge and or appraisal can be long before the order of the tribunal and the knowledge cannot be pushed to a latter date. There is absolutely no sanction either under Cr.P.C. or Land Reforms Act to pitch upon the date of knowledge to the Order of the Land Reforms Tribunal. The controversy before the tribunal obviously should be with regard to the exact land-holding and this controversy is triggered off when the concerned authority arrives at the conclusion regarding excess land. This conclusion long before the order of the tribunal is based upon the information in possession and Knowledge.
4. The Complaint is filed on 25-8-1983 after issuance of show cause notice on 21-3-1980. It is not in dispute that the complaint is within time if the limitation is reckoned from the date of the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal after excluding the time taken for sanction of the prosecution. S. 470(3) Cr.P.C. permitting the exclusion of time taken for obtaining sanction of the Government for prosecution is as follows :-
“Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded.”
The application for sanction is 9-1-78 and the order or sanction is 25-11-80. The application for sanction itself feeds an internal evidence as to the date of knowledge. It is evident from the application for sanction and the endorsement thereon dt. 12-10-1977 that the District Land Reforms Officer on the information that the petitioner did not declare an extent of Ac. 15-00 enquired into the matter in depth and arrived at a conclusion that the declarant withheld disclosure of Ac. 7.54 cents of Land in the declaration. Therefore, on the date of endorsement i.e. 12-10-1977, the knowledge has to be necessarily attributed to the District Land Reforms Officer when he perused the declaration and entertained a prima facie belief that the declaration did not furnish full and correct particulars. If the date of endorsement dt. 12-10-1977 is taken as the starting point for limitation indisputably the complaint is beyond three years after excluding the time taken for obtaining sanction of the Government. S. 469 Cr.P.C. envisages computation of the period of limitation from the date of offence or the date of knowledge. Though the date of offence can be considered as the day on which false declaration is made but even construing from the date of knowledge i.e. 12-10-1977 on which day the endorsement is made, the complaint is clearly barred by limitation. Postponement of the inauguration of the running of limitation to the date of the order of the Land Reforms ? Tribunal is not visualised either by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code or Land Ceiling Act.
5. The contention of the learned Public Prosecutor as to non-applicability of Cr.P.C. in its entirety and particularly the provisions relating to limitation under Cr.P.C. lacks substance. S. 24 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 provides for a punishment in the event of false declaration and in the prosecution pursuant to S. 24, the provisions of Cr.P.C. are applicable.
6. In this view the order of the learned Magistrate that the complaint is not barred by limitation is erroneous. The order of the learned Magistrate is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case allowed.
7. Revision allowed.