JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - This CRLMC arises out of a petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 7.11.2006, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir in 2(c) CC No. 59 of 2006, wherein he took cognizance of the offence u/s 125(A) of the Representation of People Act read with Section 177 of I.P.C. 2. As per the allegation, the Petitioner, who was a candidate from Loisingha Assembly Constituency to the Orissa Legislative Assembly, delivered the Nomination Form along with a false affidavit, knowing the affidavit to be false to the Returning Officer on 25.2.2004. The complaint petition was filed on 11.10.2006 i.e. more than two years after the said offence was allegedly committed. 3. Section 177 of I.P.C. consists of two parts. The maximum punishment prescribed with regard to the first part is six months or fine of Rs. 1000/ - or both. But for commission of offence under the 2nd part, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 2nd part of Section 177 of I.P.C. would not be attracted against the Petitioner. Section 177 of I.P.C. read as follows. 177. Furnishing false information.- Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both; Or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. I am of the view that the 2nd part of Section 177 of I.P.C. would not be attracted to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the maximum punishment prescribed for commission of offence u/s 125(A) of the Representation of the People Act is imprisonment for six months or with fine or with both. I am of the view that the 2nd part of Section 177 of I.P.C. would not be attracted to the Petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the maximum punishment prescribed for commission of offence u/s 125(A) of the Representation of the People Act is imprisonment for six months or with fine or with both. So, in view of Section 468(2)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint petition was required to be filed within one year of the occurrence, but it was filed after more than two years. So, according to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. 6. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate submits that as found from the complaint petition opp. party (complainant) has explained the delay. When the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the aforesaid offence, it would be deemed that he did so after applying his mind in terms of Section 473 of Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows: 473, Extension of period of limitation in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the 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. As per this provision, a Court can take cognizance of an offence even after expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or it feels that it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that before taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence, learned trial Court ought to-have passed a speaking order with regard to his satisfaction that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice, but he has not done so. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at last submits that when the period of limitation is expired, a right accrues in favour of the accused-Petitioner. So, before condoning the delay, he (accused-Petitioner) must be given a chance of being heard. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at last submits that when the period of limitation is expired, a right accrues in favour of the accused-Petitioner. So, before condoning the delay, he (accused-Petitioner) must be given a chance of being heard. No such chance having been given to the present Petitioner, the order of taking cognizance is bad in law. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision P.K. Choudhury v. Commander 48 BRTF (GREF) (2008) 40 OCR (SC) 257 wherein the apex Court held that before condoning such delay, the accused should be given an opportunity of being heard. I am in one with the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Under such premises, the CRLMC is allowed and the criminal proceeding in 2(C) CC Case No. 59 of 2006 of the file of learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir including the order of taking cognizance dated 7.11.2006 is hereby quashed. Final Result : Allowed