JUDGMENT 1. - Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates valuable right in the accused not to be proceeded against in a criminal prosecution after the expiry of the period of limitation and puts an embargo on the authority of the Court to take cognizance of the offence. section 473, Cr.P.C. invests the Court with wide discretion to take cognizance of an offence notwithstanding the fact that the action is otherwise barred by limitation on two grounds namely, (i) that the delay has been satisfactorily explained having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and (ii) it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 2. Admittedly, in the case on hand the incident is said to have been taken place on April 7, 1990 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui took cognizance of offence under Section 354 of the IPC, against the accused on September 14,1993. According to Section 468(1)(c) the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence under Section 354, IPC is three years. Therefore, the accused assailed the order of Magistrate by filing revision. Learned Sessions Judge, Dausa allowed the revision and quashed the order of the Magistrate by its order dated March 21, 1997. 3. Against this order that the present action for invoking the provisions under section 482, Cr.P.C. has been resisted by the complainant. 4. The Court has to act in conformity with the accepted principles of natural justice which demands that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the accused even on the question extension of the period of limitation. The principle of 'audi alterarn partern' has no exclusive application only to constitutional remedies alone, but has more wider application to all spheres of administrative or judicial activities by which one's right is to be affected. section 468, Cr.P.C. create a valuable right in the accused not to be proceeded against in a criminal prosecution after the expiry of the period of limitation. Taking cognizance of offence beyond the period of limitation without condoning the delay and without appreciating the provisions under Sections 468 and 473, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be judicial order. 5. section 468, Cr.P.C. create a valuable right in the accused not to be proceeded against in a criminal prosecution after the expiry of the period of limitation. Taking cognizance of offence beyond the period of limitation without condoning the delay and without appreciating the provisions under Sections 468 and 473, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be judicial order. 5. The act of Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence mechanically without considering the provisions contained in Section 468(1)(c) is illegal and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly quashed the order but I am of the view that in order to secure the ends of justice an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the learned Magistrate to consider the provisions contained in Section 468(1)(c) vis-a-vis section 473, Cr.P.C. 6. Consequently, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is modified and case is remanded to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui to reconsider its order after considering Sections 468 and 473, Cr.P.C. and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The parties are directed to appear before the said Court on Feb. 9, 1998. 7. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of. AUGUST8 Petition disposed of. *******