IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.38156 OF 2008 1. RAMA NAND PRASAD, SON OF LATE GOVIND MAHTO 2. RAJ KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAMA NAND PRASAD 3. RAJESH KUMAR, SON OF SHRI RAMA NAND PRASAD 4. MANORMA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAMA NAND PRASAD ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BEGUM PUR PAR POKHARA, PATNA CITY, POLICE STATION CHOWK AT PRESENT BYPASS DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SAKALDEEP KUMAR, SON OF LATE DINA MAHTO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MAHARAJGANJ, POLICE STATION ALAM GANJ, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 27/07/2011 This application has been filed challenging the order dated 04.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 860 of 2005 by which the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna city has taken cognizance for the offences alleged to have been committed under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint case was filed on 05.10.205. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this case would be covered by Sub-Section 2 (C) of Section 468 of the of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- “468.- Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation :- (1) ……………… (2) The period of limitation shall be – 2 (a) ……………. (b) …………. (c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year nut not exceeding three years.” The punishment for criminal breach of trust may extent to a period of three years or with fine or with both. From the impugned order, it would appear that the Court below has not condoned the delay and has taken cognizance. Obviously, this could not be done as it is barred by the provisions of Section 468 (2) (c) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the order dated 04.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 860 of 2005 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)