HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8445, 8475, 8488, 8513, 8519, 8520, 8998 and 9002 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: All these Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the orders dated 29.08.2011 made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1451, 1457, 1452, 1458, 1456, 1453, 1450 & 1455 of 2011 in S.T.C.Nos.42, 66, 55, 68, 64, 58, 41 & 61 of 2008 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, respectively, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the said petitions filed by them, under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to pass appropriate orders, contending that the alleged offence under Section 12(1) and 7(5) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 is punishable with imprisonment from six months to one year and the limitation prescribed under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. is only one year and that the offence as alleged in the complaints is of the year 2002, whereas the trial Court had taken cognizance of the case in the year 2008 and, as such, the complaints are barred by limitation. Since the point involved in all the criminal petitions is one and same, they are being disposed of together by this common order. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitions on the ground that there is no question of discharge in the summons case. But, admittedly, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are, to consider the point of limitation, since the complaints were preferred by the 1st respondent herein beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the finding of the learned Magistrate that the Court has no power to cancel summons without conducting full trial particularly in summons case, is erroneous in law. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted that the complaints are within the period of limitation and there is no delay on the part of the 1st respondent to launch the prosecution against the petitioners and, hence, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with. This Court perused the record. The learned Magistrate has passed the orders impugned herein holding that the applications filed under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. amount to discharge. But, this Court is of the view that the petitions filed under the said provision cannot be construed as petitions for discharge. Further, when an application is filed challenging the cognizance taken by the Magistrate beyond the period of limitation, it is the bounden duty of the Magistrate to decide the issue whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation, whether the cognizance is taken in accordance with law and whether he can proceed with the case. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, are erroneous in law and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, are hereby set aside and, all the matters are remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed along with the criminal petitions shall stand closed. __________________ RAJA ELANGO, J 8th November, 2011 cbs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Crl.P.Nos.8445, 8475, 8488, 8513, 8519, 8520, 8998 and 9002 OF 2011 (Allowed) 8th November, 2011 cbs