Judgment ARUJ MADAN, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept the notice, which she has accepted. ( 2 ) HEARD Shri S. K. Gupta on the question regarding condonation of delay in presenting the complaint before the learned Magistrate. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the bar that the alleged incident, which is subject matter of complaint presented by the petitioner before the trial Court for taking cognizance against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 426. IPC on 17-5-1994. Thereafter, on 18-5-1994 the incident was reported to the police by the complainant on, which the police investigated the matter and closed the investigation by submitting the FR on 27-6-994. Thereafter, on 24-8-1994 the petitioner filed a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate pleading that an enquiry be made in the matter. The complainant was examined afresh and his witnesses were also examined by way of corroborating the evidence of the statement made by the complainant as per Sections 200 and 202. Cr. P. C. and thereafter, the process was issued as per Section 204. Cr. P. C. on 8-8-1996. The question arose before the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court as to from which date the limitationt should be construed? Whether from the date when the protest petition was filed i. e. 24-8-1994 or from the date when cognizance was taken i. e. on 8-8-1996 when the process was issued. The revisional Court vide its order dated 3-11-1998 has opined that in view of provisions of Section 426 IPC, which defines the offence of mischief, which stipulates as under:426. Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine or with both ( 4 ) CORRESPONDINGLY if the aforesaid provision is read in consonance with Section 468 of Cr. P. C. in view of the statutory bat for taking cognizance of the offence after lapse of the period of limitation. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 468 stipulates the period of limitation shall be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Section 469. Cr. P. C. in view of the statutory bat for taking cognizance of the offence after lapse of the period of limitation. Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 468 stipulates the period of limitation shall be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Section 469. Cr. P. C. stipulates that the period of limitation in relation to an offender shall commence: (a) on the date of the offence or (b) where the commission of offence was not known to the person aggrieved by an offence or to any police Officer, the first date on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; and (c) where it is known by whom the offence was committed. the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier Sub sec. (2) of Section 469 stipulates that in computing the said period the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. ( 5 ) TAKING the date on which if the period of limitation is construed from the date of incident i. e. 17-5-1994 one year would have lapsed on 17-5-1995. The protest petition filed by the complainant on 24-8-1994 was within time. It is only after the dosing of protest petition that the complainant as well as the witnesses were examined by the trial Court on 17-10-1995 itself. Thereafter process was issued on 8-8-1996 as discussed above. Hence the limitation in my view should have been construed by the revisional Court with effect from 24-8-1994 i. e. when the protest petition was filed. ( 6 ) SIMILAR controversy, had cropped for consideration of this Court in the matter of Maluka Ram. v. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Petition NO. 442/93 decided by this Court on 21-11-1996 ). ( 6 ) SIMILAR controversy, had cropped for consideration of this Court in the matter of Maluka Ram. v. State of Rajasthan (SB Criminal Misc. Petition NO. 442/93 decided by this Court on 21-11-1996 ). The learned Single Judge after carefully examining the questions, which had arisen for consideration and also taking support from DB Judgment of Calcutta High Court in King Emperor v. Surendra Mohan Chakraborty observed as under: The definition clearly shows that as soon as Magistrate applies his mind judicially to the facts placed before him with a view to proceed under the Criminal Procedure Code against the offenders then he must be said to have taken cognizance of the offence. It is true that in the absence of any other circumstances showing that the Magistrate had taken cognizance earlier the issue, of process under Section 204 of the Criminal procedure Code conclusively proves that the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence but it does not mean that the taking of the cognizance before issue of process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not possible. So far as the complaint case is concerned the Criminal procedure Code contemplates an enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal procedure Code. Section 200 provides that Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence should examine the complainant without delay and after the examination of the complainant he may either issue process without postponing the enquiry initiated by him or if he considers it necessary he may postpone the enquiry under Section 202 and thereafter examine witnesses, which may be Produced by the complainant. The enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P. C. is therefore, conducted after taking cognizance of the offence or offences by the Magistrate and not before that. After the completion of the enquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P. C. the Magistrate has to proceed either by issue of process under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. against the offenders if he finds that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against him he may dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr. P. C. Orders under Sections 203 and 204 both order are passed after taking cognizance of the offence and not before that. Therefore, the assumption that Magistrate takes cognizance when he makes an order under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. Orders under Sections 203 and 204 both order are passed after taking cognizance of the offence and not before that. Therefore, the assumption that Magistrate takes cognizance when he makes an order under Section 204 of the Cr. P. C. is not in accordance with law. The Magistrate must be said to have taken cognizance in this case on 24th June. 1987 when he directed that the complaint filed by non-petitioner No. 2 be registered and fix a date for examination under Section 202 of the Cr. P. C. ( 7 ) AS regards notice to the accused the same is dispensed with having regard to the fact that the incident is of 17-5-1994 and if notice is issued, it will result in inordinate delay in conducting the trial before the trial court. ( 8 ) AS a result of the above discussion the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-11-1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Criminal Revision No. 10/97 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the matter shall be treated as having been presented within limitation. The ACJM. Gangapur City is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously in accordance with the law. Revision allowed.