JUDGMENT:- This is an application seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 62nd Court, Dadar, Mumbai, thereby acquitting the accused-respondent of the offence punishable under Sections 500 and 506(II) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Such for the facts necessary for the decision of this application are as follows:- On 26.9.2006, the applicant herein filed an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate alleging therein that he is indulging in the business of manufacturing of car accessories. He has his own business. He is a life trustee of Hazrat Sayyad Ahmed Badvi Junglee Peer Dargah Trust. There was a dispute between him and the other trustees over the Trust property. The applicant had tiled a petition before the Charity Commissioner seeking approval to the change report. The said change report was not yet accepted. According to him, the accused persons had made baseless accusations against him. He has alleged that in the application seeking approval of the change report, the accused persons had filed a copy of the resolution which was passed in the special meeting dated 5.3.2000 and had sought to remove the complainant from trusteeship. On 31.12.2003, the complainant had filed an application seeking certified copy of the said resolution. He had received the copy on 11.2.2004. 3. Upon perusal of the application accompanying the change report, in which it was contended as follows :- "He (complainant) never gives rent to Trust and claims that it is his own property and not a Trust property. It was discussed and with satisfaction and discussion of every Trustee it was decided to remove Iqbal Oawood Shaikh and he is also having criminal record and C.R. is registered against him in Worli Police Station." The complainant contended that he learnt about the said contents in the application in the year 2005 only after he received the cel1ified copy. According to him, the said derogatory remarks were edificed of falsehood and baseless contours. According to him, he was never prosecuted by Worli Police Station nor any other police station. He had no criminal records and hence the reference to his criminal antecedent were derogatory and devoid of any Truth. That the said libelous statement had been articulated. He has further alleged that the accused Ashfaqul Haque Khan had intimidated him and threatened that he would exterminate the life of the complainant. He had no criminal records and hence the reference to his criminal antecedent were derogatory and devoid of any Truth. That the said libelous statement had been articulated. He has further alleged that the accused Ashfaqul Haque Khan had intimidated him and threatened that he would exterminate the life of the complainant. He has further alleged that the said derogatory remarks have subjected him to hatred in the eyes of people and that he was defamed in the society. 4. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, upon considering the contents of the complaint, had framed the charge against the accused for offences punishable under Section 500 of IPC and Section 506 of IPC against the original accused No.1. The evidence was recorded. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after recording of evidence and subjective satisfaction had acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them. 5. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate had specifically considered the exception prescribed under Section 499 of IPC and held that in the absence of any defence version, the accused persons could not claim the benefit of the first and ninth exception of Section 499 of IPC. 6. While considering the evidence, the learned Magistrate has specifically observed that the complainant had made fake allegations in respect of the intimidation extended to him by original accused No.1. 7. The most important issue considered by the learned Magistrate was in respect of the limitation to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused persons. It is a matter of record that the imputation was published on 5.3.2000. whereas the complaint was filed on 26.9.2006. It is also a matter of record that the complainant had filed an application to seeking certified copy from the copy of the resolution dated 5.3.2000 on 31.12.2003. He had received the certified copy on 11.2.2004. However, the complaint was filed on 26.9.2006 i.e. practically after more than 21/2 years of receiving the copy of the said application. 8. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. enunciates the limitation for taking cognizance. Section 468 sub-clause (2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. reads thus :- "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - No Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) ... (b) ... Section 468 sub-clause (2)(c) of the Cr.P.C. reads thus :- "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitati