JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The sole submission urged in this petition is for quashing of the criminal proceeding initiated u/s 4(i) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 read with Section -21(i) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Amendment Act, 1986 on the allegation that the Petitioner, who was previously a contractor under the South-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Talcher had removed some sand unauthorisedly on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation prescribed u/s 468(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. The admitted facts according to the prosecution report is that the alleged occurrence took place on 18-7-1985 but the report it self was submitted on l8-8-1987 and cognizance of the offence was taken on 2-9-1987. It is also admitted that the maximum punishment impassable for the offence was one year at the time of the occurrence and hence the limitation for taking cognizance of the offence was one year from the date of commission of the offence. The period of limitation admittedly expired by 17th of July, 1986 and it is therefore urged that the Court could not have entertained the prosecution nor taken cognizance of the offence and that the prosecution is liable to be quashed. 2. The submission of Mr. Misra is well sustained. The bar u/s 468. Code of Criminal Procedure is that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed therein. Hence, initiation of the proceeding against the Petitioner was still-born. 3. Section 473, Code of Criminal Procedure however vests power in the Court to take cognizance of any offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if in the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. From the report of the prosecution it does not appear that the delay has been at all explained nor has the Court found that it was necessary in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. Also taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed and the date of commission thereof, I do not think that this is a matter which should be sent back to the Court, below to consider whether the delay is to be condoned. 4. Also taking into consideration the nature of the offence committed and the date of commission thereof, I do not think that this is a matter which should be sent back to the Court, below to consider whether the delay is to be condoned. 4. In the result, the Criminal Misc. Case is allowed and the cognizance is quashed. Crl. misc. case allowed. Final Result : Allowed