Limitation for misbranding complaints starts with the first testing report; later re-analysis does not extend time.

A complaint alleging misbranding under the Insecticides Act was held to be time-barred because limitation began when the first report of the competent insecticide testing laboratory was received and disclosed the alleged offence. A later request for re-analysis and the subsequent central laboratory report did not shift or extend the starting point for limitation. As the complaint was filed beyond three years from the first report, cognizance was outside the statutory period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint alleging misbranding under the Insecticides Act was barred by limitation, and whether the later report from the central insecticide testing laboratory could extend the period of limitation.

Analysis: The sample was first analysed by the competent insecticide testing laboratory, and that report disclosed the alleged misbranding. The period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure commenced from the date when that report was received, because that was the date on which the offence, as alleged, became known. A subsequent request for re-analysis and the later report from the central laboratory did not alter the starting point of limitation. The complaint was filed beyond three years from the first report and therefore beyond the statutory period prescribed for cognizance.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and could not be allowed to proceed.

---