JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7.2.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (East) Muzaffarpur in T.R. No. 1019 of 1997, arising out of Case No. C-281 of 1996 for offence under Section 35 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982 . By the said order, the petition filed by the petitioner for his discharge from the case was rejected. 2. The case in sum and substance is that the petitioner without approval of the map by the Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority was proceeding with the construction of his building and, as such, on 14.10.1996, prosecution report was submitted by the Vice Chairman, Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority, Muzaffarpur. In column-7 of the Prosecution Report, it has been asserted that " as per report/ complaint dated 21.6.1995 the accused has started unauthorized construction of a building without obtaining sanctioned plan from M.R.D.A. and the same was ultimately detected on 21.6.1995. The notice was also served/given on 30.6.1995, 19.7.1995 to the accused, even then construction work is going on. The accused has clearly violated the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982, and, therefore she/he/they is/are liable to be prosecuted." In the column of accused, name of the petitioner was mentioned. After completion of appearance, a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge from the case. The petition was dated 20.8.1997. 3. While pressing the discharge petition, it was categorically stated before the court below that the house-land in question was in the name of Pratibha Thakur, wife of the petitioner and the map for the construction of the said house was approved. It was argued that since in the prosecution report, name of actual owner of the building, in whose favour map was approved, was not made accused, the petitioner could not have been made accused in the present case. 4. It was argued that since in the prosecution report, name of actual owner of the building, in whose favour map was approved, was not made accused, the petitioner could not have been made accused in the present case. 4. From the impugned order, it is evident that while opposing the discharge petition, learned lawyer for the Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority, Muzaffarpur submitted that "it is possible that the accused may have purchased the land in the name of his wife, these questions are to be decided in the trial of this case." Meaning thereby that the record was indicative of the fact that it was the wife of the petitioner, in whose favour map was approved. However, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, (East) Muzaffarpur rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has firstly argued that the proceeding against the petitioner was barred by limitation, as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He submits by way of referring to the prosecution report, i.e. Annexure-1 that the information of alleged occurrence was received by the complainant on 21.6.1995 and prosecution report contains Memo No. 9727 dated 14.10.1996 and signature of the concerned Advocate is dated 16.10.1996. Accordingly, Sri Thakur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that apparently the prosecution report was filed after lapse of about one year and four months, i.e. after expiry of one year as specified in Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The period of limitation for an offence, in which maximum punishment is imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, is one year. In the present case, obviously the prosecution report was submitted after expiry of the period of one year. Accordingly, he has argued that on this score only the entire prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that for the offence committed by his wife, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Moreover, in the present case, according to him, no offence has been committed nor the petitioner or his wife has violated any of the provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the State is also not in a position to dispute the fact that the prosecution report was filed after expiry of one year. Moreover, in the present case, according to him, no offence has been committed nor the petitioner or his wife has violated any of the provisions of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the State is also not in a position to dispute the fact that the prosecution report was filed after expiry of one year. 8. Agreeing with the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am also of the view that the prosecution in the present case against the petitioner is not warranted. For any act of omission or commission of his wife, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Further, in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance of the offences. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in this case cognizance order was passed on 17.10.1996 and as per the prosecution report, it is evident that the Muzaffarpur Regional Development Authority itself had noticed the alleged occurrence on 21.6.1995. Moreover, in the circumstance of the present case, it is not advisable to direct the petitioner to face the rigour of the trial after expiry of such a long time. In this case, immediately after rejection of discharge petition the petitioner approached this Court and by order dated 20.3. 1998 while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court had directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in the court below shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 20.5.1998 the present petition was admitted for final hearing and it was reiterated on 20.5.1998 that during the pendency of this application, interim order dated 20.3.1998 shall continue. The present case was admitted in the year 1998 and after expiry of about 12 (twelve) years, the case has been taken up for final hearing. For the offence under Section 35 of the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982 , maximum punishment under Section 52 of the Act is one year imprisonment. In the case offence was alleged to have been committed in the year 1995 and, as such, after expiry of more than 15 years from the date of commission of offence, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the court below and face the rigours of the trial, particularly in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, which has been discussed above. 9. 9. Materials indicate that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to allow the proceeding before the court below to further proceed and accordingly the impugned order as well as the entire proceeding in T.R. No. 1019 of 1997 arising out of Case No. C-281 of 1996 is set aside. 10. Accordingly, petition stands allowed.