N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) CASES lodged by the Pavagada Police before the Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , Pavagada, came to be registered as C. C. Nos. 185 of 1986, 183 of 1986 and 184 of 1986 against the respondent for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477-A and 201, I. P. C. ( 2 ) AFTER filing the charge-sheets, summons were issued to the respondent/accused returnable by 23-6-1986 on which day the respondent/accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and was released on bail. It was made out that there was a delay of 5 years. 2 months and 25 days in filing the complaints. As the question of limitation was pointed out before the learned Magistrate, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complaints submitted were well within time. Moreover, the complaints were lodged for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477-A and 201 I. P. C. and the limitation prescribed under S. 468, Cr. P. C. has no application on the cases. He also contended that the offences alleged were continuous offences. In support of his contention the learned Prosecutor relied upon the decisions, viz. , (1) Secretary, Agricultural Market Committee v. SVGO Mills, 1984 Cri LJ 503 (Andh Pra); (2) State of Bihar v. Deokaram, AIR 1973 SC 908 : (1973 Cri LJ 347); (3) Panney Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 0 Crlj 339 (Raj) and (4) Suresh Bai v. State of Gujarath, 1983 Cri LJ 1684 (Guj ). He also contended that once cognizance has been taken in spite of there being delay, the Court gets jurisdiction to proceed with the cast or drop the proceedings or to dismiss the complaints. For these reasons, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the objections raised be overruled and the cases be proceeded with. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused also relied upon some of the decisions of various High Courts and this Court, viz. , (1) Sawanram v. State of Hariyana, (1995) 1 Crimes 160 (Punj and Har), (2) Jagannathan v. State, 1983 0 Crlj 1748 (Mad) and (3) ILR (1986) Kant 3828, contending that the complaints are time barred and deserve to be rejected. , (1) Sawanram v. State of Hariyana, (1995) 1 Crimes 160 (Punj and Har), (2) Jagannathan v. State, 1983 0 Crlj 1748 (Mad) and (3) ILR (1986) Kant 3828, contending that the complaints are time barred and deserve to be rejected. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate making observation thus:"in this case also there is no application filed by the prosecution praying for condonation of delay caused in filing the charge-sheet and there is no notice to the accused in this behalf to put forth his grievance. Under such circumstances when once the period of limitation prescribed under the Code for launching the prosecution was expired, a valuable right accrues to the accused to the effect that there would be no prosecution thereafter. This proposition of law is applicable to the present case on hand and as such thereis no prosecution after the expiry of time as such the contention of the accused is accepted and the contention of the prosecutor is rejected. . . Therefore, the cognisance of the offence could not have been taken by my learned predecessor. The proceedings are vitiated. . . . . . . "passed the orders quashing the proceedings against the accused as time barred. Challenging the same, the State preferred these revision petitions contending that the view of the trial Court is quite incorrect and unsustainable. Sri. Jadhav, learned State Public Prosecutor, also contends that if the learned Magistrate had taken into consideration the quantum of punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C, and had rightly understood S. 468, Cr. P. C. , he would not have ordered to quash the proceedings and on the other hand, he would have proceeded with further. ( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of both sides, it is proper to quote. Section 468, Cr. P. C. and Sections 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C. Section 468, Cr. P. C. reads as follows:"468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-sec. (2 ). after the expiry of the period of limitation. Section 468, Cr. P. C. and Sections 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C. Section 468, Cr. P. C. reads as follows:"468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-sec. (2 ). after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. " (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. "section 408, I. P. C. reads thus:"408. Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. "section 477a, I. P. C. reads as follows:"477a. Whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation.- It shall be sufficient in any charge under this section to allege a general intent to defraud without naming any particular person intended to be defrauded or specifying any particular sum of money intended to be the subject of the fraud, or any particular day on which the offence was committed. "section 201, I. P. C. reads as under:"201. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention given any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fone-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. "reading of S. 468, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that regarding limitation it will be 6 months to institute a complaint if the offence is punishable with fine only, or one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. From this it is clear that S. 468, Cr. P. C. is applicable in case where the offences are punishable with fine, or in a case where the punishment is imprisonment for one year or between one year and 3 years and not otherwise. Reading of Ss. 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C. makes it clear that as far as S. 468, Cr. P. C. is applicable in case where the offences are punishable with fine, or in a case where the punishment is imprisonment for one year or between one year and 3 years and not otherwise. Reading of Ss. 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C. makes it clear that as far as S. 468, Cr. P. C. is concerned, it is not applicable to the offences falling under the above 3 sections of I. P. C. When, such being the case, the learned Magistrate was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the complaints lodged were time barred and thus dismissing the same. As the orders of the learned Magistrate are resultant of non-application of mind to the relevant sections, it is proper to give one more chance to both parties to prove their cases. ( 6 ) AT this stage, Sri. M. R. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused, submitted that no case has been out against the respondent/ accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 408, 477a and 201, I. P. C. and as such, instead of sending the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration, it is better to quash the proceedings holding that no case has been made out against the accused. ( 7 ) THIS request of Sri. Naik cannot be considered in these petitions. If the respondent/ accused feels that actually no case has been made out against him by the prosecution, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings. Further the point involved in these cases relates only to whether the view taken by the learned Magistrate that the complaints lodged were time barred is correct or otherwise. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, these criminal revision petitions are allowed and the orders under challenge are set aside. The respondent, accused is at liberty to challenge the proceedings before the appropriate forum, if so advised. The matters are remitted to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal after hearing the parties. All other contentions are left open. No costs. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .