Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS are accused in C. C. No. 201 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Virudhunagar. In respect of an occurrence which had taken place on-17/12/1985, Crime No. 6 of 1985 was registered on the file of D. C. B. , Kamarajar District, Virudimnagar, under Section 147, 148,465,468 and 471 read with Sec. 120-B, I. P. C. and under Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act. Crime itself was registered only on 31/12/1985. There is no dispute that the final report was laid on 13. 4. 1989 against the petitioners and others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 Part I and 426 read with Section 149, I. P. C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of aforesaid offences on receipt of charge-sheet and c. c. No. 201 of 1990 is the consequence. Petitioners preferred an application under Section 468, Cr. P. C. before the trial Magistrate contending that the impugned prosecution was barred by limitation under Clause (2) (c ). Learned Magistrate found that all the offences for which cognizance had been taken were punishable only with imprisonment for three years or less and therefore taking cognizance of the case was beyond the period of limitation. However, learned Magistrate sought to justify cognizance on the basis that the first petitioner has surrendered on 24/11/1986 while the other petitioners were arrested on 4/3/1986 and hence while computing limitation, the period during which the offenders were not available for arrest should be excluded. If such exclusion was given effect to, the impugned prosecution was well within time. ( 2 ) I have heard Mr. P. V. Bakthavatsalam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. ( 3 ) UNDER Section 470 (4) (b), there is no doubt that in computing the period of limitation the time during which the offender had avoided arrest by absconding or concealing himself, shall be excluded. Both counsel agree that no material had been placed before the learned Magistrate that the petitioners (offenders) had either avoided arrest by absconding or by concealing themselves. Since exclusion of period of limitation has been sought to be made on no evidence, I remit the matter to the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar for fresh consideration of the petition filed under Section 468, Cr. Since exclusion of period of limitation has been sought to be made on no evidence, I remit the matter to the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar for fresh consideration of the petition filed under Section 468, Cr. P. C. pleading limitation bar. Both parties shall be of forded opportunity to adduce evidence, if they so deem fit, regarding exclusion contemplated under Section 470 (4) (b), Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) I am constrained to observe that while computing limitation, the offences alleged in the First Information Report cannot form the criterion and the learned Magistrate will have to restrict himself to the offences taken cognizance of by him. This revision is allowed to the limited extent of remitting the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Revision allowed. Matter remanded.