JUDGMENT : Leave granted. 2. One of the contentions before the High Court was that the cognizance has been taken beyond the period provided under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court relied upon the decisions of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 , and Bharat Damodar Kale and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2003) 8 SCC 559 , and has held that cognizance has been taken within time. 3. Since a reference had been made to the 5-Judge Bench in Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 62 , on the question whether earlier 3-Judge Bench decision in Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran and Anr., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 121 lays down the correct law or the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Damodar Kale, (2003) 8 SCC 559 and Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394 , was correct law, in these matters notice was issued on 26.07.2013 and the matters were referred to the Constitution Bench along with Sarah Mathew. 4. The reference in Sarah Mathew, (2014) 2 SCC 62 , as well as these matters has been answered by the 5-Judge Bench on 26.11.2013. In para 40 of its opinion, 5-Judge Bench did not accept the view of the 3-Judge Bench in Krishna Pillai, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 121. It said : "40. ... For all these, we are unable to endorse the view taken in Krishna Pillai." 5. In para 41 of the judgment, 5-Judge Bench approved the view taken in Bharat Damodar Kale, (2003) 8 SCC 559 , and Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394 ,. It said: "41. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date I on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat; Kale which is followed in Japani Sahoo I lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai will have to be restricted to its own facts f and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C." 6. Krishna Pillai will have to be restricted to its own facts f and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C." 6. The view taken by the High on the question of limitation is, thus, consistent with the opinion of the 5-Judge Bench in Sarah Mathew, (2014) 2 SCC 62 . 7. Consequently, Criminal Appeals are dismissed. 8. At the time of framing of charge, it will be open to the appellants to urge for discharge. Upon such plea being raised, the Magistrate shall consider the same appropriately in accordance with law.