Limitation under criminal procedure applies to complaint filing, not later cognizance; statewide notification authority was upheld.

The notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was construed to operate across the entire State, and the reference to Telangana was treated as inadvertent rather than as a territorial restriction. It therefore authorised the relevant Drug Inspectors to act under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, and the complaint was validly instituted. On limitation, Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to govern the filing of the complaint and initiation of prosecution, not the date on which the court later takes cognizance. A complaint filed within time is not defeated by judicial delay in passing the cognizance order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh empowered Drug Inspectors throughout the State, including outside the Telangana area, to act under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954; (ii) whether the period of limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs only the filing of the complaint or also the date on which cognizance is taken.

Issue (i): Whether the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh empowered Drug Inspectors throughout the State, including outside the Telangana area, to act under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

Analysis: The notification was issued to give effect to the Central enactment and authorised the concerned officers, including Drug Inspectors appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs Act, 1940, to exercise powers under Section 8 of the 1954 Act and to act where necessary with previous sanction under Section 14(1)(d) of that Act. The reference to Telangana in the opening part of the notification was treated as inadvertent and not as a limitation on its operation. A narrow construction would defeat the public purpose of the notification and the Central Act it was intended to implement.

Conclusion: The notification applied to the entire State of Andhra Pradesh, and the complainant had authority to initiate the complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether the period of limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governs only the filing of the complaint or also the date on which cognizance is taken.

Analysis: A cumulative reading of Chapter XXXVI shows that limitation is directed to the institution of prosecution by filing a complaint within time, and the court is then not barred from taking cognizance merely because the actual order of cognizance is passed later. The statutory scheme, including Section 469 on commencement of limitation and provisions for exclusion of time, supports that view. Since cognizance is an act of the court and beyond the complainant's control, a timely complaint cannot be defeated by subsequent judicial delay. The principle that an act of court should prejudice no one also supported this interpretation.

Conclusion: The complaint was within limitation and cognizance was not barred merely because it was taken later.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the complaint and proceedings failed, and the dismissal of the criminal petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, limitation applies to the filing of the complaint or initiation of prosecution, not to the date on which the court actually takes cognizance, provided the complaint was filed within the prescribed period.

---