https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305643 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. en-us Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Dec 2022 10:54:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305643 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305643