Judgment :- As the petitioner/accused and respondent/complainant are common in all these petitions and the same question is raised for consideration in all the matters, they can be disposed of by a common order. 2. The petitioner in all the Criminal Original Petitions is facing prosecution for offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred as Act). The petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him in C.C.Nos.25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. 3. the complaints allege that the premises of M/s.Rajam Industries Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the manufacturing of detergents, was inspected by the Joint Chief Inspector and the Assistant Inspector of factories on 29.09.2000, on which date several violations were found to have been committed. Such violations are relating to non-maintenance of sand and water buckets at the factory premises, non-provision of separate facilities for female workers, non-provision of first aid kit, non-display of number of persons engaged in each room, non-display of the name board at the entrance of the factory, etc. and in violation of the rules framed under the Act. Suffice it to say that all offences alleged are punishable under Section 92 of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that though the complaints are said to have been filed on 20.12.2000, cognizance has been taken on the various complaints only in the year 2005. Offences under Section 92 of the Act are punishable, apart from fine, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. The cognizance of the various cases in the year 2005 and in respect of offence committed on 29.09.2000 clearly stood barred under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel submits that on this sole ground, the proceedings before the lower Court in all the cases ought to be quashed. 5. I have heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and also perused the records. 6. A perusal of the records reveals that the lower Court has taken the cases on file on 21.02.2005. The offence alleged attract a maximum punishment of imprisonment of two years. While so, the period of limitation within which a Court could take cognizance would be three years as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. 6. A perusal of the records reveals that the lower Court has taken the cases on file on 21.02.2005. The offence alleged attract a maximum punishment of imprisonment of two years. While so, the period of limitation within which a Court could take cognizance would be three years as per Section 468(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 7. The Honourable Apex Court in Krishnapillai v. T.A.Rajendran and another 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 121 had drawn the distinction between the date of filing the complaint and the factum of taking cognizance thereof and has observed as follows: "4. Taking cognizance has assumed a special meaning in our criminal jurisprudence. We may refer to the view taken by a five Judge bench of this Court in A.R.Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1984) 2 SCC 500 :1984 SCC (Cri) 277. At p.530 (para 31) of the reports this Court indicated: "When a private complaint is filed, the court has to examine the complainant on oath save in the cases set out in the proviso to Section 200 CrPC. After examining the complainant on oath and examining the witnesses present, if any, meaning thereby that the witnesses not present need not be examined, it would be open to the court to judicially determine whether a case is made out for issuing process. When it is said that court issued process, it means the court has taken cognizance of the offence and has decided to initiate the proceedings and a visible manifestation of taking cognizance process is issued which means that the accused is called upon to appear before the court." The extract from the Constitution Bench judgment clearly indicates that filing of a complaint in court is not taking cognizance and what exactly constitutes taking cognizance is different from filing of a complaint. 8. Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code does provide that the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. If this provision was found exercisable in the facts of the present case, it was for the lower Court to have recorded reasons why such was the case. The lower Court has not done so. If this provision was found exercisable in the facts of the present case, it was for the lower Court to have recorded reasons why such was the case. The lower Court has not done so. In these circumstances, the bar to take cognizance envisaged under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code directly applies. 9. For the reasons above stated, the Criminal Original Petitions shall stand allowed and the proceedings in C.C.Nos.25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu shall stand quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.