JUDGMENT Kamleshwar Nath, J. - These two connected cases arise out of the proposed prosecution of the petitioner, Goverdhan Lal, under section 30 of the Arms Act which has not yet been launched in case Crime No, 186 of 1985, Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi. 2. The petitioner Govardhan Lal is a licence holderowner of a rifle. He was posted in Ghazipur as District Supply officer and was transferred to Bareilly. According to the petitioner Goverdhan Lal, he could not keep the rifle in Bareilly because he did not have an appropriate house for its safety and for that reason, he had placed the rifle at his ancestral house in village Shahpur Atia Police Station Beniganj District Hardoi where his wife and children resided. 3. It appears that the petitioners brother Kuber Lal who resided in the aforesaid house, was wanted in case Crime No. 173 of 1985 of the said police station, under Section 395/397 I.P.C. In that connection, a raid is said to have been made on 2.11.1985 at the house where the petitioner's rifle was recovered from the possession of one Ram Kumar. On that basis, a case Crime No. 176 of 1985 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against Ram Kumar, as also others from whom other illicit arms are said to have been recovered. 4. On 25.2.1985, the Police appears to have considered that petitioner's rifle was handed over for illicit purposes to the said Ram Kumar through Kuber Lal and, therefore, the petitioner Goverdhan Lal was guilty of an offence punishable under Section 30 of the Arms Act. General Diary entry dated 25.2.1985, copy of which is annexed as Annexure 5, mentions that accordingly the name of the petitioner Goverdhan Lal was added in the proceedings of the case Crime No. 176 of 1985. 5. On being sought for in connection with that offence, the petitioner filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 786 of 1986 in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the report dated 25.2.1985 (annexure5) involving him in the offence under section 30 of the Arms Act, an interim order was passed by this court on 17.9.1986 directing that Goverdhan Lal would not be arrested in the aforesaid criminal case. The competence of issuing the interim order to stay arrest having been in doubt, the petitioner Goverdhan Lal filed a writ petition no. 1503 of 1987. The competence of issuing the interim order to stay arrest having been in doubt, the petitioner Goverdhan Lal filed a writ petition no. 1503 of 1987. By order dated 11.3.1987 in the writ petition, the arrest of the petitioner Goverdhan Lal was stayed, but it was specifically directed that the proceedings of investigation shall continue in other respects and the case be connected with Criminal Misc. Case No. 786 of 1986. That is how both the cases have come up for disposal before us. 6. Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that prima facie, there was no case against the petitioner and on that ground, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed. It was however, noticed that there was a question of limitation involved which ought to be considered. Consequently, orders were passed by this court requiring the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit indicating as to whether any chargesheet had been filed and whether cognizance had been taken and the Government Advocate was required to obtain instructions. The Supplementary Affidavit, which has been filed today alongwith an information proforma issued by the Court concerned, indicates that in respect of case Crime No. 176 of 1985, no charge sheet has yet been filed against the petitioner Goverdhan Lal. Learned Assistant Government Advocate concedes to this position but says that the chargesheet was not filed because this Court had passed an order on 17.9.1986 staying the arrest of the petitioner, which stay continues to be in force by virtue of the orders passed in the writ petition. 7. The relevant dates then are, the involvement of the petitioner in the offence under section 30 of the Arms Act on 25.2.1985, the sanction of the District Magistrate for the petitioner's prosecution of 11.3.1986 and nonsubmission of chargesheet against the petitioner till date. 8. Under Section 30 of the Arms Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment which may extend upto three months or fine to the extent of 500 or both. In section 468 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offence is one year. The period of limitation commences either on the date of the offence under clause (a) or on the date on which the police officers had knowledge of the commission of the offence under clause (b) of Section 469( 1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The period of limitation commences either on the date of the offence under clause (a) or on the date on which the police officers had knowledge of the commission of the offence under clause (b) of Section 469( 1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Learned Assistant Government Advocate has referred to the exclusionary provisions under section 470 Cr.P.C. and relies upon clause (b) of Subsection 4 where such period of time has to be excluded during which the accused has avoided arrest by absconding or concealing himself. There is no allegation of the petitioner absconding or concealing himself. It is plain enough that the stay order issued by the court, would not bring the petitioner within the category of this clause. It is equally important that while passing the interim order in the writ petition, this Court had specifically directed that the proceedings of investigation would not remain stayed in any other respect. It has not been shown to us that an order staying arrest in these circumstances, would give a cause for excluding any period of time during which arrest cannot be made. After all chargesheet cm be filed even if the accused is not arrested. 10. It is clear from the above facts that cognizance of the offence under section 30 of the Arms Act allegally committed by the petitioner, has not yet been taken and the cognizance would now be barred by time. 11. Learned Assistant Government Advocate says that it is open to the prosecuting Agency to satisfy the competent Court under Section 473 Cr.P.C. about the reasons for delay in filing the charge sheet and taking cognizance and therefore, this Court may not pass any final order on the basis of the question of limitation. Since we have specifically called upon the parties to place their respective cases on the question of limitation and that has been done, we do not consider it appropriate to let the matter lie in suspense. Further, no application appears to have been made thus far to the concerned court under Section 473 Cr.P.C. 12. In the result, for the reasons recorded above, the proceedings for the prosecution of the petitioner Goverdhan Lal on the report contained in Annexure5 to the writ petition under Section 30 of the Arms Act, are quashed.