IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25223 of 2007 PRABHAT KUMAR, son of Lalan Kumar Pandey, resident of village-Lakhan Saira, P. S. –Lalganj, District Vaishali. …/ Petitioner. Versus STATE OF BIHAR .. Opposite party. ----------- 3. 30.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing the entire prosecution including the order taking cognizance dated 29.11.2002 for offence under Section 25(A)(1)(1-B), 26, 35 of the Arms Act only on the ground that the same was barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on account of expiry of the period of three years from the date of offence, is to be noted for its being rejected. Offence under Section 26 envisages punishment which would not be less than six months but may also extend to seven years and also fine. That being so, counsel for the petitioner cannot urge that all the offences for which cognizance was taken, were barred by the provision of Section 2 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as it is only for the sentence of a period of three years or less for which the legislature has put a period of limitation. Infact it is well settled that there would be no applicability of Section 468 Cr.P.C. in respect of any offence exceeding sentence of a period of three years and only the period of maximum sentence of an offence as alleged has to be looked into for invoking the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.c. Judged in this background as the maximum sentence under Section 26 of the Arms Act is a period upto seven years, this court must reject the plea of Section 468 Cr.P.C. raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The further argument of counsel for the petitioner that in given facts there would not be any applicability of Section 26 Arms Act cannot be at least gone into for the purpose of gone into the limitation in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C. The last submission of counsel for the petitioner that no offence is made out against the petitioner is only to be 3 noted for its being rejected inasmuch from the contents of the FIR itself it is clear that a mini arm factory was recovered in which the petitioner is also said to be accomplice with few arms in his conscious possession. That being so, this Court would not go into the merit of the allegation for the purpose of examining the impugned order taking cognizance. Consequently, this Court would not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)