ORDER N.M. Golvalkar, J. 1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat, under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, recommending that the order dated 30-11-1959 passed by the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Balaghat, in Criminal Case No. 15 of 1959 be set aside and the accused be discharged. 2. The reference has come to be made in the following circumstances. The non-applicant No. 2 (before me) had filed a complaint under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, against the non-applicant No.1 before me) in the Court of Magistrate 3rd Class, Balaghat, and non-applicant No. 1 was convicted: But on appeal filed by the non-applicant accused the order of conviction was set aside on the ground that the case being triable by Nyaya Panchayat it could not be tried by the Magistrate. The complaint was, therefore, directed to be returned for presentation to proper Court. Thereupon the complainant-non-applicant filed that complaint before the Nyaya Panchayt at Lamta. But as the offence involved had been committed more than one year prior to the date when the complaint was represented, the Nyaya Panchayat dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation as provided in Section 73 of the C.P. & Berar Panchayats Act, 1946. On the dismissal of the complaint by the Nyaya Panchayat the complainant filed a fresh complaint in the Court of the Magistrate, 3rd Class at Balaghat. The non-applicant-accused raised a preliminary objection that the complaint having been dismissed as barred by limitation by the Nyaya Panchayat no fresh complaint could be entertained now by the Magistrate; and in any case the complaint before the Magistrate would also be governed by the same period of limitation prescribed in Section 73 of the Nyaya Panchayats Act and on that ground too the complaint could not be entertained. This objection was however over-ruled by the Magistrate on the ground that since his predecessor had already taken congnizance no such objection could now be entertained. Against this order a revision petition was filed in the Sessions Court at Balaghat which agreeing with the contentions raised before it has made this reference and the recommendations. 3. This objection was however over-ruled by the Magistrate on the ground that since his predecessor had already taken congnizance no such objection could now be entertained. Against this order a revision petition was filed in the Sessions Court at Balaghat which agreeing with the contentions raised before it has made this reference and the recommendations. 3. Under Section 68 of the C.P. & Berar Panchayats Act of 1946 it is provided that a Nyaya Panchayat shall have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the criminal and Civil Courts within of course their local limits of jurisdiction for trial of the offences under the Nyaya Panchayats Act and such other offences as are specified in the schedule thereto. It is not disputed that the offence punishable under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, was friable by Nyaya Panchayat The result therefore is that so long as a Nyaya Panchayat is functioning, the jurisdiction of the criminal courts under the Criminal Procedure Code remains under suspension. It is only when the jurisdiction of Nyaya Panchayat with respect to any particular criminal case is cancelled as provided in Section 84 of the C. P. & Berar Panchayats Act the suspended jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts is revived as provided under Section 85 Clause (1) of the C.P. & Berar Panchayats Act. But even then it is provided in Clause (2) of Section 85 that the period of limitation provided in Section 73 of the Act is not affected, The limitation continues to be of one year So in my opinion, the complaint filed before the Magistrate was barred by limitation and could not be entertained. 4. Then there is another impediment in the entertainment of that complaint. When the Nyaya Panchayat had dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation the complainant should have gone up in revision and should have urged that under the circumstances of the case he was entitled to claim exclusion of the period spent by him in prosecuting his complaint in the ordinary criminal Court. That not having been done by him the dismissal of the complaint became final and conclusive. The accused could not, therefore, be prosecuted a fresh on a fresh complaint. On this ground also, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was illegal and liable to be quashed. That not having been done by him the dismissal of the complaint became final and conclusive. The accused could not, therefore, be prosecuted a fresh on a fresh complaint. On this ground also, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was illegal and liable to be quashed. It is not understood what difference it made whether the cognizance was taken by the present Magistrate or by his predecessor. The present Magistrate could set right the wrong done by his predecessor as it affected the very jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 5. Thus on both these grounds I find that there could be no prosecution of the non-applicant-accused in criminal case No. 15 of 1959 by the Court of the Magistrate, 3rd Class, Balaghat. I therefore, accept this reference and quash all the proceedings in that criminal case. The complaint is dismissed and the accused is discharged. Appeal dismissed