IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32775 of 2009 MD.MOZAHIR HUSSAIN @ LAL BABU, son of Md. Sajju, village Amma Mauri, PS Pateur, district Vaishali – Petitioner. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Manish Kr. No.III and Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocates. For the S t a t e : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Additional Public Prosecutor. … 2 22.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 10.3.2009 passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur in Gr. 1470/2006/Tr.3631/2009, arising out of Patepur PS Case No. 40/2006, by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under section 3 of the Bihar Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner is said to have pasted a poster of 5” x 4” on the boundary wall of Sri Lakhindra Rai of village Repura. The penalty for the offence under the Act is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months / a fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/- or with both. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the cognizance is barred under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) which prescribes that no court shall take cognizance of an offence specified in the categories of sub-section (2) after the expiry of period of limitation. Sub-section (2) envisages that no cognizance would be taken for an 2 offence where the punishment is up to one year within the period of limitation, i.e. one year. The court below while taking cognizance of the offence has taken into consideration the provisions of section 468 of the Code and condoned the delay without giving any reason. Section 473 of the Code clearly states that the court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary in the interest of justice. On going through the order impugned this court finds that the court has merely stated that the period of limitation is condoned without giving any reason or showing why it was in the interest of justice to condone the delay. Where the law requires that certain conditions have to be fulfilled, it is essential that the court should at least consider those conditions and record reasons for passing an order in accordance with the conditions provided under the law. In the present case no reason at all has been given by the court for condoning the delay. In the result, the order impugned, dated 10.3.2009 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)