7.In M.Sathianathan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (Supra), on 06.05.2004, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the police stating that his sixteen goats were missing on 07.01.2004. Based on the said complaint, a case was registered in crime No.119 of 2004, for the offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C against the petitioner thereon. After investigation, the police had filed a charge sheet on 28.04.2008, i.e., after four years from the date of alleged offence. Considering the said fact, this court has quashed the proceedings against the petitioner therein, as the case was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., whereas, in this case, in the FIR it is clearly stated that the officials of the TIIC have inspected the premises of the first accused on 18.09.2000 and found that one machinery was missing and with regard to the said fact, a show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2010, calling for explanation from the accused No.1. After receipt of the said notice, he had sent a reply dated 25.10.2000, stating that the said machinery is very much available in his premises. Based on the said reply, the officials of the TIIC have again inspected the premises of the first accused on 22.01.2001 and found that the said machinery was not available. So it is clear that only on 22.01.2001, the officials of the TIIC have finally came to know that the said machinery was illegally removed by the accused.
