Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This is an application for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 25-4-1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he had taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 47, 49, 52, 55 and 57 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 . against the petitioners in the following circumstances : 2. In appears that the Inspector of Excise, Sadar, Sub-Inspector of Excise, Sadar and others Excise Officials had inspected the licensed premises of petitioner No. 1 situated at Anugrah Nagar P. S, Dhahsar, District Dhanbad on 6-10-1986 and they had detected certain irregularities in respect of storage of drum containing alcohal and other articles Thereafter, case was instituted and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, who had taken cognizance of the offence, which is being challenged in this application. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. H. Melva for the petitioners has raised only a legal point that the order taking cognizance is barred by law of limitation as prescribed in Section 96 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 . 4. The Section 98 of the Bihar Excise Act, 1915 has prescribedl limitation in respect of suit and prosecution, which says that : "No Civil Court shall try any suit against the Government in respect of anything done, or alleged to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, and except with the previous sanction of the State Government, no Magistrate shall take cognizance of any charge made against any Excise Officer under this Act or any other law relating to the excise-revenue or made against any other person under this Act, unless the suit or prosecution is instituted within six months after the date of the act complained of." 5. This shows that in case of filing an Excise case special limitation has been prescribed and a case for prosecution against any person is required to be filed within a period of six months from the date of offence complained of, unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for filing case beyond that period. 6. Admittedly in this case, the inspection was made on 6-104986 and cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was taken on 24-5-1987, that is after 21 days of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 96 of the Act. 6. Admittedly in this case, the inspection was made on 6-104986 and cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was taken on 24-5-1987, that is after 21 days of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 96 of the Act. Therefore, admittedly, the cognizance taken against the petitioners is barred under the law of limitation as prescribed under Section 96 of the Act which is admitted position and also conceded by learned counsel for the State that no sanction was obtained and the complaint was not filed within the prescribed time. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the order taking cognizance beyond the prescribed period is invalid and vitiated in law. The whole complaint, therefore, has to be dismissed as barred by law of limitation. 7. A similar view was expressed in a ruling reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 169 by a Bench of this Court. 8. In the result, for the reasons stated above, this application is, allowed. The impugned order taking cognizance and the criminal prosetion of the petitioners are hereby quashed.