JUDGMENT 1. - The matter relates to the offence under Section 323 IPC. The incident is alleg to have taken place on 27.10.85 and the private complaint was filed before learned Magistrate on 7.11.85. After recording the statements of the complainant u1 200 Cr.PC and the witnesses under section 202 Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate on 8.9.87 he that from the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, a prima facie case u1 323 IPC is made-out and, therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered to register c and to summon the accused petitioners for the offence under section 323 IPC. Thereafter, t accused petitioners moved the learned Magistrate under Section 468 Cr.PC for quash' the cognizance being time barred but that application came to be dismissed by t learned Magistrate on 24.10.90. 2. In the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, ( AIR 1984 SC 718 ) , Bench five judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "When a private complaint is filed, the Court has to examine the complainant oath save in the cases set out in the proviso to Section 200 Cr.PC. After examining the complainant on oath and examining the witnesses present, if ally, meaning thereby that the witnesses not present need not be examined, it would be open to the court to judicially determine whether a case is made out for issuing process. When it is said that Court issues process, it means the Court has taken cognizance of the offence and has decided to initiate the proceeding and as a visible manifestation of taking cognizance, process is issued which means that the accused is called upon the appear before the court. This may either take the form of a summons or a warrant, as the case may be." 3. Obviously, the cognizance in the matter has been taken by the learned Magistrate on 8.9.87, when he applied his mind an came to the conclusion that a prima facie case under Section 323 IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners and the petitioners had been ordered to be called through summons and the case had been ordered to be registered for the offence under section 323 IPC. From the above, it is evident that the learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance after one year from the date of incident i.e. 27.10.85. From the above, it is evident that the learned Magistrate had taken the cognizance after one year from the date of incident i.e. 27.10.85. The matter is, therefore, time barred under Section 468 Cr.PC and as a consequence thereof, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad in law, which cannot be sustained. 4. In the result, the petition is allowed and the orders of the learned Magistrate dated 8.9.87 and 24.10.90 are quashed.Petition allowed. *******