JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision preferred by the State against the order dated June 30, 1976 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Salumber under which the learned Magistrate holding that the complaint has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, dropped the proceedings and ordered the accused be released. 2. A complaint was filed by Mr K.K. Ahluwalia, Labour Enforcement Officer under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the court of the Munsif Magistrate on August 13, 1974. The accused were summoned. The allegations in the complaint were that an application under section 15(2) of the Act was presented before the Authority under the Act, at Udaipur. The application was filed on December 1, 1971 and a direction was made on June 28, 1973 for payment of wages for the month of August 1971. The Authority under the Act also accorded sanction to Mr. Ahluwalia to file an application under section 21(1) of the Act. It was alleged that the accused non-petitioner has contravened section 5(1) of the Act by not paying the wages for the month of August, 1971 to the workers employed in their mine. 3. The learned Magistrate holding that the complaint was filed after the prescribed period of limitation, dropped the proceedings. 4. The only ground which has been urged by the State is that the complaint could not have been filed by the Inspector after the Act without obtaining prior sanction of the competent authority and the period spent in obtaining the consent should have been excluded under section 417(3) Cr.P.C. 5. This revision petition has no force as shall be shown presently. An offence under section 20 of Act is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-. In case the accused contravene any of the provisions of section 5 except sub-section (4) thereof, sections 7,8 except sub-section (8) thereof, sections 9, 10 except sub-section (2) thereof and sections 11-13 both inclusively. The contravention is said to be of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act and as such under section 20 of the Act is punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/-. Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. provide that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. 500/-. Section 468(1) Cr.P.C. provide that no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. In sub-section (2) of section 468, the period of limitation for an offence which is punishable with fine only is six months. Section 469 Cr.P.C. provides as to when the period of limitation commences. It commences on date of the offence, or where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first such offence comes to the knowledge of person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier or where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. In computing the said period,the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. Section 470 Cr.P.C. deals with exclusion of time in certain cases. The relevant sub-section is (3) under which where the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the time required for obtaining such sanction shall be excluded. The explanation further provides that in computing the time required for obtaining the sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or the sanction shall be excluded. 6. It will be clear from the above referred provisions that the time spent in obtaining the consent or sanction alone is to be excluded. That time shall be the time when the application is made and the consent is obtained. In the instant case there is no material as to when the application for consent was made to the authority under the Act. On the contrary, it appears from consent that the order was passed on April 5, 1974. Therefore, the period is not to commence from the date of the sanction but the period spent in taking consent or sanction alone should be excluded. Obviously, on the material on record the complaint was time barred. 7. On the contrary, it appears from consent that the order was passed on April 5, 1974. Therefore, the period is not to commence from the date of the sanction but the period spent in taking consent or sanction alone should be excluded. Obviously, on the material on record the complaint was time barred. 7. There is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******