IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.795 of 2007 DR.LAKHAN LAL SINHA SONOF LATE SADASHIV SINHA, R/O MOHALLA- RAJENDRA NAGAR, ROAD NO. 8A, P.S.- KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATNA 4. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, KADAM KUAN POLICE STATION, PATNA 5. DR. BIRENDRA KUMAR, LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT AND SUPERVISION GOFFICER, SHOPE AND ESTABLISHMENT ACT, PATNA. ----------- 9 21/04/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 656 CM of 2005 whereby cognizance under Section 34 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been take against him. Section 34 of the Act is the penal provision and according to it, the offence is punishable with fine up to Rs. 250/- and Rs. 500/- for subsequent offence after the first conviction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this is the first offence under the Act in which the petitioner is being prosecuted and in view of the Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. the learned Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence 2 beyond the period of six months unless the delay is condoned. Section 468 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the period of limitation. If offence is punishable up to six months or fine only then cognizance has to be taken within six months. The present case relates to punishment with fine only for which period of taking cognizance was six months from the date of offence i.e. 17.9.2004. No doubt cognizance can be taken later on also but for that the delay must have been condoned. In view of the fact that delay in this case has not been condoned, it is held that the order taking cognizance dated 18.3.2005 in Complaint Case No. 656 CM of 2005 against the petitioner is bad and illegal. Accordingly, the order dated 18.3.2005 in Complaint Case No. 656 CM of 2005 is set aside and this application is allowed. Avin (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)