Limitation for drug complaints runs from analyst report receipt, not sample collection, where the offence becomes known later.

A complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was held to be within limitation because the offence of selling sub-standard or adulterated drugs was not known merely on sample collection; limitation began when the Government Analyst's report was received. Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars cognizance only after the prescribed period, and Section 469(1)(b) applies where the offence is first discovered later. On that basis, the complaint was not time-barred, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was barred by limitation and, in particular, whether limitation commenced from the date of collection of samples or from the date on which the Government Analyst's report was received.

Analysis: Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars cognizance after the prescribed period, and Section 469(1) fixes commencement of limitation from the date of the offence, or where the commission of the offence was not then known, from the first day on which it came to the knowledge of the person aggrieved or a police officer. The sample collection date was not the date on which the offence of selling sub-standard or adulterated drugs became known; the violation came to light only when the analyst's report was received. On those facts, Section 469(1)(b) applied, and limitation ran from the date of knowledge, not from the date of sampling.

Conclusion: The complaint was within limitation and was not barred under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court's order quashing the proceedings was set aside and the matter was remanded for disposal according to law.

---