JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Accused is the Petitioner ?in this revision application against an order taking cognizance under Sections 341/323. Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts material for this revision are that the occurrence took place on 12-10-1981. The first-information report was lodged on the very day and a copy was received by the-Court of Sub-divisional Judicia I Magistrate on 19-10-1981. Charge-sheet submitted after investigation on 31-12-1981. Cognizance, however, was taken on 24-5-1983. 3. Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the Courts from taking cognizance after the period of limitation prescribed therein. ?Period of limitation? has been defined u/s 467 to mean the period specified u/s 468. u/s 469, Criminal Procedure Code the period of limitation commences when the commission of the offence is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer. In this case the offence was known to both on 12-10-1981. There is no dispute that on 24.5.1983 when cognizance was taken limitation as provided in Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code had already expired. How ever, consequent upon the cognizance summons were issued to the Petitioner who appeared on 13-7-1983 and was released on bail. The copies of the police not being ready, case was adjourned from time to time for one year till 17-7-1984 when the copies of the police paper were supplied to the Petitioner by the trial Court. The particulars of the offences being explained to the Petitioner that day, he pleaded not to be guilty and claimed to be tried. Case was thereafter posted to 22-8-1984 for hearing and witnesses were directed to be summoned. Till 9-9-1985 the witnesses did not appear for which the hearing was adjourned. That day two witnesses, who appeared, were examined, cross-examined and discharged. On the same day, an application was filed on behalf of the Petitioner that the prosecution is not maintainable since cognizance is barred by limitation. On . 16-10-1985. the trial Court rejected the application observing: .... As I feel, the contention made on behalf of the accused has got no merit at all at this stage since cognizance has already been taken by this Court previously after application of judicial mind. Hence the aforesaid petition is rejected.... This revision is directed against the aforesaid order. 4. 16-10-1985. the trial Court rejected the application observing: .... As I feel, the contention made on behalf of the accused has got no merit at all at this stage since cognizance has already been taken by this Court previously after application of judicial mind. Hence the aforesaid petition is rejected.... This revision is directed against the aforesaid order. 4. The language of Section 468 (1), Criminal Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. It reads as follows: 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided else where in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after expiry of the period of limitation. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx The exception indicated in Section 468 (1), Criminal Procedure Code is provided in Section 473, thereof. It reads as follows: 473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases: Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. The clear language of this Section lea yes no room for doubt that a Court is given the discretion to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that. (a) the delay has been properly explained, or (b) in the interest of justice it is necessary so to do. 5. Where the word ?Shall? is used prohibiting to do a particular act, it shall have the force of legislative mandate. In Section 468 (1), Criminal Procedure Code the word ?Shall? have been used as a mandate. Therefore, after the limitation provided in Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code has expired, the Court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence unless it is satisfied that the delay has properly been explained or it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. have been used as a mandate. Therefore, after the limitation provided in Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code has expired, the Court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence unless it is satisfied that the delay has properly been explained or it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. The Court empowered to take cognizance is not bound to take cognizance after the period of limitation expires even if one or both the .conditions are satisfied. It has the discretion not to take cognizance if the period of limitation has expired even if it is satisfied that either of the two aforesaid conditions or both exist. It is to take decision on the facts and in the circumstances of each case. The decision is to be given judicially. Judicial exercise of power requires the decision to be supported by reasons. Arbitrariness winks where the order is non-speaking. In the present case, there is no reason given in support of taking cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation. Taking of cognizance is not supportable on this short ground. 6. Mr. S. K. Mund, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strongly relied upon a division of this Court in Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi ILR (1982) Cut 143, and submitted that prosecution against the Petitioner is to be quashed., Mr. Mund submitted that the trial Court has erred in law in the impugned order in spite of the bar of Limitation being brought to its notice by assuming application of judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case while taking cognizance. . The second submission of Mr. Mund has great force. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the short ground of having been rendered by the learned Magistrate on assumption which has no basis since the order taking cognizance is not supported by reasons recording satisfaction of the existence of either of the two pre-conditions. 7. Whenever the question of maintainability of the prosecution is alleged on the ground of the cognizance being barred by limitation the Court should examine whether the cognizance is really barred and in case it is so barred whether any of the pre-conditions for taking cognizance is satisfied. In this case the charge-sheet was filed by the police in time hardly within two months of the first information report. In this case the charge-sheet was filed by the police in time hardly within two months of the first information report. The records do not disclose the reason for delay in taking cognizance. On the date of taking cognizance, no application was filed by the prosecutor explaining the cause of delay in considering the materials for taking cognizance of the offence. However, no formal application would be necessary where the facts and circumstances as revealed from the record would speak for themselves to satisfy a Court that cognizance beyond expiry of the period of limitation is to be taken. Even if the delay is not properly explained Court is to examine whether in the interest of justice cognizance is to be taken beyond such period. The Court has not applied its mind to the said aspect of the matter while taking cognizance. The said order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 8. The submission of Mr. Mund that prosecution is to be quashed requires careful consideration. Mr. Mund submitted that the decision of this Court reported in Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi1 (supra) is to be made applicable to this case. In the aforesaid decision the question for consideration was whether a Court has power to take cognizance retrospectively. It was held that there is no such power. The question of taking cognizance retrospectively arose out of a complaint case. u/s 190, Criminal Procedure Code, cognizance can be taken by a Court. (a) upon receiving complaint of facts which constitute an offence: or (b) upon a police report of such facts; or (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer; or (d) on facts upon his own knowledge. 9. Complaint may be oral or in writing. u/s 200, Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate taking cognizance is to examine the complainant upon oath and the substance is to be reduced to writing. Where the complaint is in writing, the examination of the complainant on oath is not necessary where it is by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty; or by a Court; or where the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate for inquiry or trial u/s 192, Criminal Procedure Code examination of the complainant is not necessary. Where either the complainant is examined on oath or an inquiry is mad the Magistrate is empowered to dismiss the complaint u/s 203. When complaint is made to a Magistrate not competent to take cognizance, in case the complaint is made in writing, he- is to return the same to be presented in the proper Court and where it is ?not in writing he would direct the complainant to the proper Court. Thus, exhaustive provision has been made by the legislature to give a finality to a complaint where the complainant is to be examined n oath either by taking cognizance of dismissing the same u/s 203, Criminal Procedure Code Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi1 (supra) is a decision coming within this category. The said decision would not be applicable to a case where the Magistrate is required to take cognizance on a police report or upon complaint by a Court or public servant acting in discharge of his official duties. The Magistrate is not left with any option to refuse to take cognizance if the facts disclose an offence unless it is barred by limitation as provided in Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code. No finality can be given to such report or complaint without application of mind to the question of limitation. 10. It is to be remembered that a wrong affecting the society is crime. The absence of criminal jurisprudence is to keep the society in order. Machinery has been provided by the legislature for the said purpose keeping in mind that individual may not be harassed by wrong use of the machinery. The ethics that number of criminal may escape the rigour of the law but one innocent person should not be convicted, has led to the interpretation that in case of two views, the view in favour of the accused shall be accepted. Where an individual files a complaint, there is greater chance of victimisation of an innocent person through the process of law. Therefore, checks and balance have been provided as stated earlier before taking cognizance. Unless he explains the delay to the satisfaction of the Court it will not normally take cognizance unless it comes to the conclusion that interest of justice demands the same. Therefore, as has been held in Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi1 (supra) there is no scope for retrospective cognizance. 11. Unless he explains the delay to the satisfaction of the Court it will not normally take cognizance unless it comes to the conclusion that interest of justice demands the same. Therefore, as has been held in Subash Chandra Mohapatra v. M. S. Jaggi1 (supra) there is no scope for retrospective cognizance. 11. Where a duty is cast on the Court to take cognizance but for the prohibition u/s 468, Criminal Procedure Code, Court is to discharge its duty properly. The First Information Report on the basis of which investigation was made and charge-sheet was filed as in this case cannot be lightly dealt with. Therefore, while coming to the conclusion that the taking of cognizance is directly against the prohibition the Court is to be directed to apply its mind to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the facts and circumstances under which in spite of receipt of the charge-sheet the question of taking cognizance was not considered by the Court and there upon consider whether it is satisfied that the delay was on account of justified grounds or interest of justice demands taking cognizance. Since any further observation is likely to prejudice either the prosecution or the accused, I do not propose to delve into the matter further. 12. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed and the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with the aforesaid observations from the stage of taking cognizance of the offence. Send a copy of the order to the District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack to make an enquiry either himself or through the Chief Judicial Magistrate and submit a report indicating the cause of delay and in case it is on account of the office of the Court, steps taken thereupon. Final Result : Allowed