JUDGMENT : B.J. Sheshin, J. The State of Gujarat has challenged in this Revision Application the impugned order dated 6.2.86 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Court No. 2, an application exh. 3 submitted by the present-opponent accused in Cri. Case No. 1288/86 by which the proceedings were closed and the accused was acquitted. 2. In this case on 28.1.85 an application was made against the accused before the Registrar of Money Lending. However, the complaint was lodged before the police against the accused on 16.12.85 and the police filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate on 24.4.86. The learned Magistrate has considered the starting point of limitation from 28.1.85, the day on which an application was made before the Registrar of Money Lending the learned Magistrate was wrong in considering the date of application i.e. 28.1.85 for the purpose of limitation. Said application contain serious allegations against the accused and therefore the Registrar had to inquire into the allegations contained in the said application. After the inquiry was over on 16.12.85 a complaint was filed before the police and therefore, that date should have been considered by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. Admittedly, the police submitted the charge-sheet on 24.4.86 i.e. within a period of 4 months, which is less than one year, therefore it cannot be said that the charge-sheet was filed after the period of limitation. 3. Even assuming for the sake of argument the learned Magistrate was right in holding that the charge sheet submitted by the police was submitted after the period of one year, even then he ought not to have closed the proceedings and acquitted the accused, because under section 73 Cr.P.C. he has discretion to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation, if it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. There cannot be a better case than this in which the learned Magistrate should have exercised his discretion vested in him under section 73 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice, because in this case the accused was doing the business of money lending without licence for lacs of rupees and charging exorbitant rate of interest from poor persons. 3.1. There cannot be a better case than this in which the learned Magistrate should have exercised his discretion vested in him under section 73 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice, because in this case the accused was doing the business of money lending without licence for lacs of rupees and charging exorbitant rate of interest from poor persons. 3.1. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is required to be set aside and the learned Magistrate is required to be directed to take cognizance on the charge-sheet submitted by the police against the accused. 4. In the result, this Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate on 6.8.86 on application Exh. 3 submitted by the opponent-accused Sureshbhai alias Suryaprabha Vithalbhai to drop the proceedings in Cri. Case No. 1288/86 is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case after taking cognizance against the accused and decide the case on or before 31.12.91 in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate is also directed to see that presence of witnesses and the accused is secured because this is a serious economic offence under the Money Lenders Act and if the offence is proved against the accused, then the accused is required to be dealt with strictly in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.