IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.32970 of 1999 BAIDYANATH PRASAD & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 8/ 25.6.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition has been filed to quash the prosecution which was initiated by order dated 23.5.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in Aurangabad (T) P.S. Case no. 339 of 1994 by which the court below took cognizance of the offence under sections 406, 323 and 120B of the IPC. The sole contention is that the date of occurrence being 24th September, 1994, the order of cognizance ought to have been passed within or up to three years from that date but the date on which the impugned order was passed, was much beyond the period of three years as appears fixed by the provision of section 468(2 )(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). On perusal of the provision contained in Chapter XXXVI what could be found is that there is a provision under section 469 of the Code which speaks about the commencement of the period of limitation and sub-section (1) (b) of that particular provision indicates that the period of limitation shall commence in a case of the present nature from the date on which such offence came to the knowledge of the informant or the police officer. The FIR was lodged on 25th September, 1994 and thus, after considering the provision of section 469 of the Code, the order impugned herein appears passed beyond the permissible limit of 2 limitation as fixed by section 468 of the Code. Offences like 406 and 379 of the IPC are punishable by imprisonment of three years. Having viewed the issue from that angle, the petition has to be allowed and the order impugned has to be quashed. Order accordingly. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)