JUDGMENT A.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Mr. Manoj Ku. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the contribution of the period from February, 1993 to April, 1993 amounting to Rs. 253/-, cognizance was taken on 8.1.1999 which is barred by limitation as per the decision in the case of State vs. M/s. Prajatantra Prachar Samiti reported in 51 (1981) C.L.T. 79. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party fairly admitting to have received the contribution vehemently urges that no fault can be found in the cognizance as the Scheme provides to file complaint only after issuance of notice. 4. Having gone through the cited decision i.e State vs. M/s. Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (supra), I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party had been taken care of in the said decision for the punishment prescribed i.e. one year for offence under Section 14 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the limitation is one year under Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 5. It is also decided in the said decision that the offence is not a continuing offence and there is nothing on record to save the limitation for taking cognizance after one year. 6. In view of the aforesaid law enunciated in the case of State vs. M/s. Prajatantra Prachar Samiti (supra), this Court is inclined to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 and hereby quash the order of taking cognizance dated 08.01.1999 in 2 (C) CC Case No.10 of 1999. 7. Accordingly, the CRLMC is disposed of.