JUDGMENT : K. Manmadha Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed calling for the records in CC No. 66 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge at Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District and quash the same. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent by order in proceedings Rc.45/03/Z- II/B4 dated 08.01.2004 accorded authorization to the 4th respondent to file a criminal case against the petitioner. The sum and substance of the order is that an enquiry under Sec.51 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 1964 has been ordered by appointing Cooperative Sub- Registrar/ Divisional Cooperative Officer as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry in to the affairs of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited of Vemaravarm. The enquiry officer has unearthed certain cases of defalcations of funds of the society and established evidence from the record of the society about the criminal liability involved under various sections of IPC and recommended for sanction of prosecution against Sri P.V.S.R.D. Prasad, who is the petitioner herein the ex- secretary of PACS Ltd., in Vastavai Mandal. Pursuant to the said sanction order of the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent after laps of 8 years has filed a written complaint dated 02-07-2012 to the 2nd respondent to register complaint against the petitioner herein. Upon receipt of the said written complaint, the 2nd respondent registered a case in FIR.No.75 of 2012, dated 09-07-2012 against the petitioner under Sec.403, 408 and 420 IPC. In the said crime, the 2nd respondent has filed Charge Sheet on 19-03-2013 by examining 6 witnesses and charge the accused is liable to be punished under Sec. 403, 408 and 420 IPC as he misappropriated the funds of the society and utilized the funds for his own accord, as such, he committed cheating. It is further submitted that for the offences under Sec.408 and 420 the period of limitation to take cognizance is 7 years and whereas the sanction for prosecution was accorded on 08-01-2004 and the complaint was filed on 07-07-2012 i.e., beyond 7 years of period. Period of Limitation and thereby the court shall not take cognizance of the offences referred in the charge sheet after expiry of period of limitation. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. Raghu, learned counsel representing Mr. Period of Limitation and thereby the court shall not take cognizance of the offences referred in the charge sheet after expiry of period of limitation. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr. Raghu, learned counsel representing Mr. Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition. To support his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Bajaj Finance Ltd., Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/AP/0977/2016 wherein it was held that: Section 468 is incorporated with a view to put a bar of limitation on prosecution and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of process of the Court by filing vexatious and belated, prosecutions long after the date of offence. The Court is duty bound on presentation of charge sheet to consider the question of limitation and to see as to whether it is competent to take cognizance and whether limitation has expired or not. In case limitation has expired, when it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and in disregard of the provision, if the Court takes cognizance, the order of taking cognizance would be without jurisdiction. Section 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of Limitation.- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, 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) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is Punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing the above decision requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing the above decision requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader while denying the allegations made in the petition, as per instructions received from the Station House Officer, Vatsavai PS, NTR District, would contend that, the respondent police after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as CC No. 66 of 2015 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jaggaiahpet and the case is posted to 16.2.2024 for examination of LWs.5 and 6. 7. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, in the present case, pursuant to the sanction order of the 3rd respondent dated 08.01.2004, the 4th respondent after lapse of 8 years has filed a written complaint to the 2nd respondent to register complaint against the petitioner. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the 2nd respondent registered FIR No. 75 of 2012 dated 9.7.2012 under Sections 403, 408 and 420 IPC. It is further observed that, in the said crime, the 2nd respondent after completion of investigation, charge sheet has also been filed. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the offences under Section 408 and 420 the period of limitation to take cognizance is 7 years and whereas the sanction for prosecution was accorded on 8.1.2004 and the complaint was filed on 07.07.2012 i.e., beyond 7 years. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 408 IPC, reads as under: Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the decision of this Court referred to above, it is observed that, as per Section 468 IPC, the Court is duty bound on presentation of charge sheet to consider the question of limitation and to see as to whether it is competent to take cognizance and whether limitation has expired or not. In case limitation has expired, when it has no jurisdiction to take cognizance and in disregard of the provision, if the Court takes cognizance, the order of taking cognizance would be without jurisdiction. 10. In view of the foregoing discussing, this Court feels that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, this Court deems fit to quash the proceedings. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The C.C No. 66 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.