JUDGMENT 1. The petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated May 22, 1989 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambar Lake whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and other co-accused namely Munshi and Babukhan for the offence under Sections 323 & 447 IPC. 2. The incident is said to be of March 5, 1988. A report of the, incident was made at police station Dudu by the non-petitioner Ibrahim on 5.3.1988. After the investigation of the case the matter was investigated by the police. Thereafter, the police submitted a negative report so far as the offences under Sections 147, 452, 379 I. P. C. are concerned. However, the police arrived at the conclusion that prima-facie an offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons and this offence is non-congizable. 3. The compliant then appeared in the court of trial Magistrate and submitted a protest petition against the acceptance of final report. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant, took cognizance against the petitioner and two other co-accused persons namely Munshi S/o. Shri Alanoor and Babu Khan S/o Shri Alanoor for the offence under Sections 323 and 447 IPC. The petitioner has challenged this order before me on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel submits that the offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for 1 year while the offence under Section 447 Cr. P. C. is punishable with imprisonment for 3 months and the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate after more than 1 year i.e. on May 22, 1989 and the incident had taken place on March 5, 1988. The learned counsel submits that Section 468 Cr. P, C. creates a complete bar to take cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided therein. Under sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr. P. C. the period of limitation has been provided as under: "(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 exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 4. 4. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the cognizance should have been taken against the petitioner and other co-accused persons within a period of 1 year from the date of the commission of offence. Admittedly, the cognizance has been taken after the expiry of the period of limitation. Even a protest petition was filed on 26th April, 1989. There was no application before the Magistrate for extension of period of limitation as provided under Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate also did not pass any order of extending the period of limitation. 5. Thus, it is clear that the cognizance has been taken after the period of limitation had expired as provided under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance after the expiry of period of limitation in the absence of any extension granted by him on being satisfied that the delay has been explained by the complainant. 6. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated May 22, 1989, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sambar Lake taking cognizance against the petitioner is set aside. 7. The order of taking cognizance against the co-accused Babukhan and Munshi is also set aside even though they did not file any petition, but their case is at par to that of the petitioner and they should also be given the same benefit.Petition allowed. *******