IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 104 of 2009 Date of Decision:16.9.2010. _______________________________________________ M/s Pandit Chemicals and Allied Industries Pct. Ltd. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & Anr. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate No. 1 General. For respondent No.2 : Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Government Standing Counsel Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner herein challenges the order dated 1.8.2009, inter alia, on the ground that cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner was barred by limitation. The petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and pleaded before the learned Magistrate that the complaint was barred by limitation. 2. A perusal of the order shows that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner have been dealt with in a cryptic manner without in any manner adverting to the principles of law involved or Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment. Yes 2 noticing either the case law cited by the parties or the submissions made. 3. It is by now well settled that the provisions of Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandate that the judgment and order should contain the submissions made, the judgment cited and the reasoning of the court on the basis of which the decision has arrived at. What I find from the order herein is that barring noticing a few facts, nothing else has been dealt with by the court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also for the respondent have citied number of judgments supporting their contention that the complaint is either barred by limitation/ the court can take cognizance. Surely, if this is the situation, it was the duty of the court to have noticed all the submissions and then to have arrived at a conclusion. 4. Needless to say that the limitation is a fundamental point and goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of court to take cognizance. In this view of the matter, the petition is allowed to the extent as noted hereinabove. The order dated 1.8.2009 is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the learned trial court that it shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. Records of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. September 16, 2010 (VT) 3