IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32997 of 2007 DUKHI SHARMA, S/O LATE CHANDI SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELIYA TOLA, CHAKHANI, P.S. BAGAHA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN……………………………………PETITIONER. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR……………………………OPPOSITE PARTY. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ---------- 5. 11.11.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned A.P.P. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that cognizance for offences under Sections 461 and 379 I.P.C. in Bagaha P.S. Case No.68 of 2000 taken against him was beyond period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 Cr.P.C. In this connection, it was submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 4.4.2002 and the cognizance was taken on 19.2.2007 and in that view of the matter the prosecution of the petitioner was barred by limitation. In the Full Bench decision of this court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar (1985 PLJR 271), it has been held that the issue of limitation is a question which needs to be raised and determined at the earliest stage before the Trial Court, since the question of limitation is a matter for consideration, computation and adjudication by it alone and where such a plea is raised it ought to be adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue. It was also held that the - 2 - disputed issue of limitation cannot be properly raised directly in the High Court for the quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below and raise this issue in the light of the observations of the Full Bench. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)