JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed in grievance to the order dated June 12, 1984 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagaur rejected the preliminary objections of the petitioners regarding the limitation for taking cognizance of the case under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. 2. On February 9, 1971 one Kishoresingh of Village Jagi lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, Naguar, alleging therein that Jeep No. MRG 1264 being used in connection with the Election Work during those days had been stolen at the cattle fair Manasar on February 9, 1971 at about 3.00 p.m. Case under Section 379 Indian Penal Code was registered. Police could not trace out the thief and, therefore, final report was filed in the Court. On September 18, 1978 S.H.O. Khunkhuna received information through, a 'mukhbir' that the Jeep, stolen at cattle fair Manasar in 1971 was there in the 'Bada' of Hardeen Ram Jat. On investigation Police came to know that the Jeep was placed there by Chairman Ex-Pradhan, Badabara, Ramchandra Jat and one more person seven or eight months before in the night. Hardeenram, Nanuram, Magangingh, Surajnarayan and Bhanwaroon Khan were examined by the Police. Jeep was recovered from the 'Bada' of Hardeenram. Charge-sheet under Sections 379 and 411 Indian Penal Code against the six petitioners was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur on October 3, 1980. On April 17, 1982 Kunaram filed an application for taking cognizance against Hardeenram also. On June 25, 1983 another application under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here in after to be referred as 'the Code'), was filed on behalf of the petitioners with the prayer that they may be discharged because of the bar under Section 468 of the Code for taking cognizance by the Court after three years of the incident. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate heard the parties on the applications and by the order dated June 12, 1984 rejected both the applications and fixed the case for framing of the charge. It is in grievance of that order that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. While arguing the revision petition, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submission only to the question of limitation under Section 468 of the Code for taking cognizance against the petitioners. It is in grievance of that order that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 3. While arguing the revision petition, Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners confined his submission only to the question of limitation under Section 468 of the Code for taking cognizance against the petitioners. it has been strenuously contended that as the occurrence is said to have taken place on February 8, 1971 and the challan had been filed on October 3, 1980, the Court had no power to take cognizance in view of the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor controverting these contentions submitted that though the occurrence related to February 8, 1971 and the first information report was filed on the next day, the names of the assailants were not known till September 18, 1978 when the 'mukhbir' informed the Police about the Jeep being in the 'Bada' of Hardeenram. Therefore, the charge-sheet filed on October 3, 1980 being within three years from September 18, 1978 was within the period of limitation. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that ' the question of limitation does not come in the way of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance in the case. 5. Section 468(2)(c) of the Code provides the period of limitation of three years for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. There is no dispute on the point that the offences under Sections 379 and 411 Indian Penal Code fall within this category., The controversy, is on the point as to from which date the period of limitation shall commence in the present case. Section 469 of the Code deals with the provisions regarding the computation of the period of limitation. It reads as under: Section 469. Section 469 of the Code deals with the provisions regarding the computation of the period of limitation. It reads as under: Section 469. Commencement of the period of limitation--(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence,: (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is 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. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners names of the, petitioners were known to the Investigation Officer in the year 1972 and so far as his information goes there is such an entry in the case diary. The learned Public Prosecutor stressed that the names of all the petitioners were not known and only Chainaram name appears in the case diary of 1972, but the information was not specific. That it was only to the effect that the Investigating Officer through a 'mukhbir' came to know that Chainaram had committed the theft had erased the number and marks of the Jeep in order to screen the offence. That it was only in 1978 that the Investigating Officer knew about Chairman and other persons being involved in the case of the theft of the Jeep. 7. From the perusal of the case dairy the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be correct that name of Chairman only finds place in the case dairy of 1972. But even that much of information to the Investigating Officer amounts to the knowledge of the identity of the petitioner Chariman and there was no reason for the Investigating Officer not to proceed with the investigation in that line and file the challan against that petitioner at least in time. If in the year 1972, the identity of accused-petitioner Chaina Ram was known the charge sheet filed on October 5, 1980 is definitely after the expiry of the period of limitation. If in the year 1972, the identity of accused-petitioner Chaina Ram was known the charge sheet filed on October 5, 1980 is definitely after the expiry of the period of limitation. There was a clear bar for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance against petitioner-Chainaram. Regarding the remaining petitioners, there was no information prior to September 18, 1978 with the Police about their being involved in the offence. The prosecution has claimed to the knowledge only on September 18, 1978 from some 'mukhbir' about the stolen Jeep being in the 'Bada' of Hardeenram. It was on September 18, 1978 that the Jeep was recovered. 8. Section 468 of the Code prohibits the Magistrate form taking cognizance after expiry of the period of limitation. If the charge-sheet is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2), the Magistrate has no power to take cognizance. There is no other alternative and the prosecution is bound to fail. The object of the legislature is putting a bar of limitation for taking cognizance was to prevent harassment to the accused caused by facing trial after lapse of long time after the offence. It minimises the chances of apprehension in the mind of a person that he may have to face the trial at any time. Similarly the chances of tampering with the witnesses or the witnesses themselves changing their version, because of the lapse of memory due to passage of time, are minimised. Delayed trial may many a times cause prejudice to the accused in his defence which he could have availed earlier. 9. The question of bar of limitation came for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Mohan Vikal v. Ascharaj Lal Chopra AIR 1976 SC 988 and their Lordships were pleased to observe that, it is hardly necessary to say that statutes of limitation have legislative policy behind them. That, they shut out related and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. That, it also saves the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay, on the part of the Prosecutor. 10. That, they shut out related and dormant claims in order to save the accused from unnecessary harassment. That, it also saves the accused from the risk of having to face trial at a time when his evidence might have been lost because of the delay, on the part of the Prosecutor. 10. Dealing with the question of limitation and the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 of the Code, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sarwansingh 1982 Cr. LR (SC) 5 were pleased to hold that, the object the statute seeks to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation, the conviction and sentence of the respondent was held to be non-est because of the cognizance being taken beyond the expiry of the period of limitation. 11. Applying the principle enunciated in the two cases referred to above and keeping in view the object of enacting Section 468, I am inclined to hold that so far as Chainaram is concerned, the Court had no power to take cognizance when his identity was known to the Police in the year 1972. The filing of the challan in the year 1980 raises the question of limitation and the answer would go in favour of Chainaram and he is entitled to the benefit of Section 468 of the Code. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decling to accept the prayer so far as Chainaram is concerned. Regarding the remaining petitioners, as discussed above, there is no material to suggest that their identity was known to the Investigating Officer prior to September 18, 1978. As such filing of challan against them on October 3, 1980 is within the prescribed period of limitation and the Court had power to take cognizance against them. 13. As a result of the above discussion petition of Chainaram is allowed and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur dated June 12, 1984 so far as taking cognizance against Chainaram is concerned, is set aside. 13. As a result of the above discussion petition of Chainaram is allowed and the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur dated June 12, 1984 so far as taking cognizance against Chainaram is concerned, is set aside. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. The petition of the remaining petitioners viz. Ram Karan, Kana Ram, Ram Chander, Alladin and Hanuman Ram is dismissed.Revision Allowed. *******