ORAL JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.––Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. This application is filed for quashing the order dated 08.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge of Economic Offence, Patna in Complaint Case No. 272 (c) of 2004. 3. For non-submission of return for the first quarter for the period of 2002 to 2003, the offence which constitutes is under Section 162(1) of the Companies Act in which fine is only prescribed, so limitation for cognizance is of six months. Admittedly, complaint petition is lodged on 08.10.2004, beyond the period of six months. That has been taken into consideration by the trial Court also but delay is condoned. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that no ground was existing for condonation of delay. He should be noticed for the same, if not, then also this matter should be reconsidered. Now, the circumstance is that return is submitted on 23.05.2005 with fine, vide annexure-2, which is accepted also by the concerned authority. 4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. But in the circumstance discussed above, order of cognizance dated 08.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge of Economic Offences, Patna in Criminal Case No. 274 (c) of 2004 is set aside and the case is remanded to reconsider the matter afresh after taking into consideration the point raised by the petitioner, including his submission of return along with fine and its acceptance. 6. With the above observation, this quashing application is allowed.