JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 28-10-1992, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons on filing the process fee by the complainant. 2. Mishri Babu (respondent No. 2) filed a complaint on 5-4-1990, against the petitioners in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 120 and 121 of the Indian Railways Act. It was alleged in the complaint that on 16-3-1990, he, as the Ticket Collector, was posted at the main gate of the Railway Station, Bikaner, between 1230 to 20.30 Hours. At about 20.15 hours, he went to take water and when he was returning after taking water, accused Raj Kishore, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Assistant Commercial Superintendent, abused him by stating that the complainant was roaming here and there while on duty. Accused No. 2 Govind Narain Sharma, who, at the relevant time, was posted as Station Superintendent, also, reached there when accused Raj Kishore was scolding him. Govind Narain Sharma, also, abused him by saying that he is speaking against the Assistant Commercial Superintendent and thereafter both of them pushed him in the office of the Station Master. This complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to the Station House Officer, G.R.P., Bikaner. The Station House Officer, G.R.P., Bikaner, after investigation, submitted a Final Report. A notice was issued to the complainant. On 30-5-1990, the complainant filed another complaint. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and that of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.r'.C. After consideration of the evidence, produced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 1-5-1991, dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant and accepted the Final Report. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1-5-1991, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, the complainant preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was allowed by him and the case was remanded to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, for re-consideration. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, without taking further evidence, by his order dated 28-10-1992, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, without taking further evidence, by his order dated 28-10-1992, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act. It is against this order that the petitioners have preferred this miscellaneous petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the remand of the case, the learned Magistrate did not take any further evidence and took cognizance against the accused-petitioners on the same materials which were already available on record when he refused to take the cognizance. It is, also, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 28-10-1992, is barred by time in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was not an account of any fault on the part of the complainant that the cognizance could not be taken by the learned Magistrate in time and even the learned Magistrate was competent to take the cognizance after the expiry of the period of limitation in view of the provisions of Section 473 Cr.P.C. and as such the order, passed by the learned Magistrate, does not require any interference. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The incident, in the present case, took place on 16-3-1990 and the complaint was filed by the complainant on 5-4-1990, which was sent for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and a protest petition/second complaint was filed by him on 13-5-1990 and the cognizance under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act was taken by the learned Magistrate on 28-10-1992. The offence under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act is punishable with a fine of Rs. 50/- and the limitation, as per Section 468 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. is of six months as the offence is punishable with a fine only. According to Section 468 (2) (c), no Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of six months. 50/- and the limitation, as per Section 468 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. is of six months as the offence is punishable with a fine only. According to Section 468 (2) (c), no Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of six months. As the offence under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act is punishable with a fine only, but the learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 28- 10-1992, i.e., much after the expiry of the period of limitation provided under Section 268 (2) (a) Cr.P.C. without extending the period under Section 473 Cr.P.C. Section 473 Cr.P.C. gives powers to the trial Court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied from the facts and the circumstances in the case that the delay has been properly explained or it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. No doubt, Section 473 Cr.P.C. authorises the Court in extending the period of limitation in the cases where it is desired in the interest of justice or the delay has been properly explained, but the learned Magistrate has not exercised the powers under Section 473 and has not extended the period. Unless the period is extended, the cognizance, taken by the learned Magistrate after the expiry of the period of limitation, deserves to be quashed. As the learned Magistrate has neither extended the period of limitation nor has taken into consideration the fact that it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so, as such the cognizance, taken by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act after the expiry of the period of six months, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous petition, filed by the petitioners, is allowed and the order dated 28-10-1992, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, taking cognizance against the petitioners, is quashed and set-aside. The complaint, filed by the complainant (respondent No. 2) as well as the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 354 of 1992 (Mishri Balm v. The State of Rajasthan, . pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner, are quashed and set-aside.Petition allowed. *******