JUDGMENT 1. - The petition has been filed tinder Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 10.10.2011 whereby the revision petition has been dismissed and the order dated 30.1.2009 of the trial Court has been affirmed by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 67 of the Rajasthan Excise Act was dismissed. 2. Hared learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which was barred by limitation. During the course of argument, it has specifically been noted that the occurrence has taken place on 24.4.2006 and charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused on 21.12.2006 and hence cognizance of the offence has been taken in limitation and hence contention of the present petition is unsustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that once cognizance has been taken against the co-accused on 21.12.2006, then second cognizance, which has been taken against the petitioner on 9.4.2008 is perverse and illegal. He has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in Bagh Singh & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 1985 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 417 , wherein it has been held as under. "The cognizance of an offence can be said to be taken when the Magistrate applies his mind to the matter before him and decides to proceed further with the matter. Now when once he has applied his mind to the police report which has been placed before him and he decide to take cognizance of the offences only against some of the accused persons it cannot be envisaged that he will have further opportunities of re-considering the same police report again and again and on the basis thereof he would take cognizance against other accused persons who may appear to be involved in the commission of some offence because if it is allowed to be done, there would be no end to the re-consideration of the police papers from time to time." 5. Looking at the above, order dated 9.4.2008 taking cognizance against the present petitioner is barred and liable to be quashed. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 9.4.2008 is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******