ORDER This petition is directed against the order of Shri N.C. Lal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Manger in Case No. 10 (c)/2 of 1984 dated 28.2.1984 by which the order of issuance for summons was passed for prosecution under section 22 (B) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 against the petitioner. 2, Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the limitation prescribed under section 22-B clause (1) sub-clause (b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the cognizance is barred which is not taken within six months of the date on which the occurrence is alleged to have been committed. The learned C.J.M. found that there was delay of three days in filing the complaint for contravention of Rules 22, 26, 25, and 21 of the Minimum Wages Act, [Central Rules, 1958] but he condoned the delay under section 473 of the code of Criminal Procedure and passed the impugned order. 3. Mr. Prasad, further submitted that there is a special limitation provided under section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. There is no provision in the said Act, giving discretion to the court for the condonation of the delay. Section 473 of the Cr. P.C. applies with regard to the limitation mentioned in section 468 of the Cr. P.C. this does not apply to special enactments for condoning the provision of limitation within itself, As such, the application of Section 473 Cr. P.C. in this case was not according to law, and the period of limitation could not be extended beyond six months. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the state. Under section 22-B Clause (2) Sub-clause (b) unless a complaint there made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, no court shall take cognizance. There is no discretion given to this court for extending the said period of limitation. Further section 473 Cr. P.C. applies with regard to section 468 of the Cr, P.C. and not with regard to the Special enactments. 5. In that view of the matter, I think the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is correct. Accordingly, the impugned order is held to be not according to law and hence, set aside the same. Accordingly, this Petition is allowed. Application allowed.