Judgment BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J. 1. On the basis of a complaint by an inspecting officer, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under section 34 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953, hereinafter called "the Act". The petitioners are alleged to have violated Sections 12, 37 and 33 (2) of the Act, during an inspection by the complainant on 23-6-1975 at 9.30 A. M. The question which has been raised before me in support of this application is that the prosecution is barred by Sec.36 of the Act. The complaint in respect of the alleged occurrence dated 23-6-1975 seems to have been filed on 3-1-1976. On the same date, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, siwan, took cognizance under Sec.34 of the Act. 2. Section 36 of the Act reads as under : "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this act or any rule or order made thereunder except on a complaint in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by an Inspecting Officer or any person authorised in this behalf by the State Government within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed : provided that the Court may for reasons to be recorded in writing take cognizance of the offence for the breach of the provisions of Sections 16, 26 and 28 after the expiry of the said period of six months, if it is satisfied that the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the complaint within the said period." It is apparent that, if a complaint is not made within six months of the date of the occurrence on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act. The Court may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take cognizance of the offence even after the expiry of the said period of six months if the Court is satisfied that the complainant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the complaint within the said period. But, this proviso relates only to offences for the breach of the provisions of Sections 16, 26 and 28 of the Act. In respect of other offences, the period of limitation cannot be extended. But, this proviso relates only to offences for the breach of the provisions of Sections 16, 26 and 28 of the Act. In respect of other offences, the period of limitation cannot be extended. So far the present case is concerned, the offences alleged are not for the breach of the provisions of Sections 16, 26 and 28 of the Act. If any offence is alleged to have been committed under Sections 12, 37 and 33 of the act, as in this case, the complaint must be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. If the complaint is not made within the period of six months, cognizance cannot be taken. 3 In the present case, as stated above, the complaint itself was made beyond the period of six months. That being so, the cognizance taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. This application, therefore, succeeds and the order dated the 3rd january, 1976, by which the cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Sec.34 of the Act in CII Case No.3 of 1976 is set aside.