JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 28.11.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tara Nagar whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners under section 295 and 379 IPC. 2. Mr. Shah contends that the order of the Magistrate is not sustainable for two reasons, one the, learned Magistrate has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has simply obeyed the directions of the Addl. Sessions judge. Two, the cognizance has been taken after the expiry of period of limitation and the delay having not been condoned by the Magistrate, the cognizance is bad. 3. Mr. Choudhary on behalf of Mr. Goel contends that the police papers clearly show that the offence was committed by the petitioner and therefore, the order of the Magistrate is proper. He is not in a position to meet the contention that the cognizance was barred by limitation. 4. I have considered the above arguments. The short facts of the case are that Om Prakash lodged a report at Police Station Tara Nagar on 2.2.93 alleging that the two petitioners and others caused damage to the 'Hanuman Mandir' and they took away the offerings from there and this amounted to insult to his religion. The police after investigation gave final report. The complainant filed protest petition, on which statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 5.8.93 dismissed the complaint holding that no case was made out. This order was challenged by the complainant before the Sessions Judge, Churu by way of revision petition. The learned Addl. Sessions judge heard the revision petition and vide order dated 25.1.96 set-aside the order of the Magistrate and directed him to take cognizance against the petitioners under section 295 and 379 IPC. Thereupon the learned Magistrate vide impugned order took cognizance. 5. A reading of the order passed by the Magistrate clearly shows that he himself did not apply his mind to the facts of the case. He was guided by the observations made in the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It was a mistake on the part of Addl. Sessions Judge to make observation that there was enough material for taking cognizance under section 295 and 379 IPC and the learned Magistrate should pass the order of taking cognizance. He was guided by the observations made in the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. It was a mistake on the part of Addl. Sessions Judge to make observation that there was enough material for taking cognizance under section 295 and 379 IPC and the learned Magistrate should pass the order of taking cognizance. In a revision against an order refusing to take cognizance, the Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 398 Cr.P.C. could direct only further enquiry in the matter. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge should have refrained from expressing any definite opinion and giving direction to the Magistrate to take cognizance. The learned Magistrate following the directions given in the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken cognizance without even stating that there is material on record to take cognizance and he was satisfied. As the order of taking cognizance has not been passed after the Magistrate himself has applied his mind to the facts of the case, the order is not sustainable in law. The power of taking cognizance vests only in the Magistrate and not in the Addl. Sessions Judge. Since the cognizance has been taken only on the basis of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the order is liable to be set-aside. 6. There is merit in the second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners also. The occurrence is said to have ane place on 1.2.93. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 28.11.96. Clause (c) of Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. provides that period of limitation shall be three years if the offence is punishable with the imprisonment not exceeding three years. In the instant case, the offence under section 295 IPC is punishable with two years imprisonment and the offence under section 379 IPC is punishable with three years imprisonment. Thus, cognizance could be taken within three years of the commission of the offence by virtue of sub-sec. (2) (c) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. since in the instant case the cognizance has been taken much after the expiry of limitation, the cognizance is liable to be quashed on this ground also. It is significant to point out that the learned Magistrate has not extended the period of limitation under section 473 Cr.P.C. 7. For the reasons stated above, the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners prevail and this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. It is significant to point out that the learned Magistrate has not extended the period of limitation under section 473 Cr.P.C. 7. For the reasons stated above, the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners prevail and this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. Consequently, the misc. petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 28.11.96 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Tara Nagar taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed.Petition Under section 482 Succeeds-Order Of Taking Cognizance Quashed. *******