JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.4.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur, whereby the rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Drugs Inspector filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur alleging inter alia that on 24.8.93 he had purchased Climpane Capsules from one Indian Drug Distributors. It was found that the said drug was manufactured by the petitioners. As such notice alongwith the report of the Laboratory which opined that the sample did not comply with the claim in respect of Cloxacillin content was forwarded to the petitioners. A complaint against the petitioners for offence under Section 18(a)(1) and 18(B) read with Sections 16(1)(A), 17(C), 17(AF), 27B)(1), 28(A) and 27(D) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was filed. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the alleged sample was taken by the Drugs Inspector on 24.8.93 and the complaint was filed on 26.2.98. The offences alleged in the complaint are punishable with a maximum sentence of up to 3 years and as such the complaint was barred by limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. This position has not been disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. In my view, the petition deserves to be allowed. The purpose of the Parliament in prescribing the period of limitation is to put pressure on the organs of the prosecution to make every effort to ensure the detection and punishment of the crime quickly. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054 has observed that the object of the Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time as a result of which the 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. Thus, Section 468 Cr.P.C. puts a statutory obligation upon the court not to take cognizance of the offences of the category which is specified in Sub-section (2) after the lapse of the period of limitation. Thus, Section 468 Cr.P.C. puts a statutory obligation upon the court not to take cognizance of the offences of the category which is specified in Sub-section (2) after the lapse of the period of limitation. Section 469 Cr.P.C. provides that the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence on the date of the offence. Section 470 Cr.P.C. provides exclusion of time in certain cases. Section 471 provides for exclusion of date on which the court is closed. Section 471 provides for exclusion of date on which the court is closed. Section 742 provides for continuing offence. Section 473 Cr.P.C. is a non-obstante clause which provides that the court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. 5. In the instant case the complainant did not bother to ensure that the complaint is filed within a period of three years. There is not even a whisper as to the cause of delay in the complaint. The learned Magistrate before taking cognizance die not bother to satisfy if the complaint was filed within limitation. The court is duty bound on the presentation of the charge-sheet to consider the question of limitation. The delay in prosecution has to be condoned prior to taking of cognizance of the offence. The order condoning the delay has to be passed objectively considering facts and circumstances of the case to the satisfaction of the magistrate. No court can be permitted to by-pass the provisions of limitation as contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is well established that the plea of limitation can be raised at any stage during the trial. In the instant case, complaint is apparently barred by limitation. As such the proceeding deserves to be quashed. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur dated 5.4.2004 is quashed and set aside. The proceeding in Cr.Case No.206/98 pending in the said court is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******