GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THE only point canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P. Vidya Sagar is as to whether the prosecution launched against the petitioners is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P. C. The facts which are germane for disposal of this case are that on 6-8-1990, the Inspector of Police, Anti Power Theft Squad, Central Zone, Vijayawada, along with others visited the Electricity Service Connection taken by the petitioner herein to his bore well which is installed with 5 H. P. motor and found that the petitioner was pilfering electric energy by directly tapping the L. T. overhead line from the poll existing by the side of his bore well and utilizing the supply for drawing water from the well for cultivation purpose. He registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 1990 and after investigation; the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners on 3-11-1993, and congnizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on the same day i. e. , on 3-11-1993. ( 2 ) FROM the above averments in the charge sheet, it is clear that the offence had taken place on 6-8-1990 and the cognizance thereof was taken on 3-11-1993. Now it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, which reads as under:" Wherever dishonestly abstracts consumes or uses any energy shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees, or with both; and if it is proved that any artificial means or means not authorized by the licensee exist for the abstraction, consumption or use of energy by the consumer, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that any abstraction, consumption or use of energy has been dishonestly caused by such consumer". ( 3 ) THE maximum punishment that can be imposed by the courts in regard to such offences is only 3 years and according to the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P. C. , the period of limitation for taking cognizance is only three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. ( 4 ) HERE it is again necessary to extract the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P. C. , the period of limitation for taking cognizance is only three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. ( 4 ) HERE it is again necessary to extract the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P. C. " Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation: 1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub (2) after expiry of the period of limitation. 2) The period of limitation shall be - a) Six months if the offence is punishable with fine only; b) One year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. c) Three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years; 3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishments. "in the case on hand, the date of offence is 6-8-1990 and the report is also dated 6-8-1990. However, the charge sheet was filed on 3-11-1993 and the cognizance thereof was taken on 3-11-1993. It is definitely beyond the period of three years and in my considered view the charge sheet is barred by limitation. In fact, my view is further fortified by the judgments of this court wherein the learned judges have taken the view that the cognizance taken by the courts below beyond the period of three years is barred by limitation in identical facts and circumstances. In the light of the above I have no hesitation to hold that the complaint filed by the respondents herein is hit by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly the revision is to be allowed. Another interesting question for determination in this revision is as to whether it is open for the petitioner to raise this point in this court for the first time without raising the same before the courts below. Another interesting question for determination in this revision is as to whether it is open for the petitioner to raise this point in this court for the first time without raising the same before the courts below. As the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is purely a question of law and as it was not raised before the courts below, there was no occasion for the courts below to take a view on this matter either way. In my considered view it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including before this court. On this aspect the Apex Court as early as in the year 1999 has taken the same view. The object of the Criminal Procedure Code as regards limitation in filing the cases was reiterated in STATE OF PUNJAB V. SARWAN SINGH1 as under:" The object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statute seeks to sub-serve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation". For the foregoing reasons the judgments of both the courts below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the courts below are set aside. The petitioners-accused is acquitted of the offences with which they are charged. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith. 1. Accordingly this revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed by the courts below are set aside. The petitioners-accused is acquitted of the offences with which they are charged. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith. 1. To adjudicate this aspect, the facts which are germane for disposal of this case are that on 6-8-1990, the Inspector of Police, Anti Power Theft Squad, Central Zone, Vijayawada, along with others visited the Electricity Service Connection taken by the petitioner herein to his bore well which is installed with 5 H. P. motor and found that the petitioner was pilfering electric energy by directly tapping the L. T. overhead line from the poll existing by the side of his bore well and utilizing the supply for drawing water from the well for cultivation purpose. He registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 1990 and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner on 3-11-1993, which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate on the same day i. e. , on 3-11-1993. From the above averments in the charge sheet, it is clear that the offence had taken place on 6-8-1990 and the cognizance thereof was taken on 3-11-1993. Now it is necessary to extract the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, which reads as under:2. The intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 468 i. e. , putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions, is to prevent the parties from filing cases after long lapse of time, as a result of which there is every likelihood of the incriminating evidence getting disappeared; and further to prevent the abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence, which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution which enshrines fairness of criminal trial and speedy justice.