IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.31940 of 2008 Lal Bahadur Thakur, son of Ram Lakhan Thakur, village Gohi, PS Warisnagar, Dist. Samastipur – Petitioner. Versus State Of Bihar ----------- 2 1.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 21.4.2006 passed in GO Case No. 274/2006 / T.R. 2080/2007 passed by the C.J.M., Samastipur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 of the Bihar Saw Mill (Regulation) Act, 1990 and sections 41, 43 and 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The only point raised in this case is that the court could not have taken cognizance in view of the bar under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution case is that the Range Officer forwarded a report to the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai, Samastipur, when he came to know that 11 pieces of Sesham wood had been carried from the forest and was being utilized by the petitioner who was running an illegal saw mill. On the basis of the aforesaid fact a case was instituted. As pointed out cognizance was taken on 31.4.2006. Section 5 of the Saw Mill Act deals with application of licence, section 7 deals with the power of entry, inspection, search, seizure etc. Section 10 deals with the manner of keeping account of stock of wood in a saw mill or saw pit, section 13 2 envisages the procedure by which saw mills may be confiscated. The penal section is section 14 of the Saw Mill Act. The penalty provided is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year / a fine or both. Similarly it is submitted that section 41 of the Indian Forest Act deals with power to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce, section 42 deals with penalty for breach of rules made under section 41 which envisages an imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine which may extent to Rs. 500/-. Assailing the order counsel for the petitioner submits that cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation as section 14 of the Saw Mill Act, 1990 is the only penal provision which provides a imprisonment for one year along with fine, whereas section 41 of the Forest Act provides imprisonment for six months only, as such it is barred by section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecution report was instituted in 2001 and the cognizance was taken in 2006 which is beyond the period of limitation as provided under section 468 of the Cr.P.C. and as such the order of cognizance dated 21.4.2006 is hereby quashed as it is barred by limitation. This application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)