( 1 ) ). Special leave granted.

( 2 ) ). Heard learned counsel for the parties S. 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 provides :"no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act after the expiry of one year from the date of which the offence is alleged to have been committed. "the appellant who is one of the accused persons in the case before the learned Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence challenged the continuance of the prosecution by filing an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High court contending, inter alia, that cognizance was barred under S. 9 of the Act. That having not been entertained this court has been moved in appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) ). It is not disputed that cognizance has been taken by the court more than a year after the offence was committed. Counsel for the respondents has stated that since the complaint had been filed within a year from the commission of the offence it must be taken that the court has taken cognizance on the date when the complaint was filed. In that view of the matter there would be no limitation.

( 4 ) ). Taking cognizance has assumed a special meaning in our criminal jurisprudence. We may refer to the view taken by a five Judge bench of this court in A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak. At p. 530 (para 31 of the reports this court indicated:"when a private complaint is filed, the court has to examine the complainant on oath save in the cases set out in the proviso to S. 200 Cr P C After examining the complainant on oath and examining the witnesses present, if any, meaning thereby that the witnesses not present need not be examined, it would be open to the court to judicially determine whether a case is made out for issuing process. When it is said that court issued process, it means the court has taken cognizance of the offence and has decided to initiate the proceedings and a visible manifestation of taking cognizance process is issued which means that the accused is called upon to appear before the court. "the extract from the Constitution bench judgment clearly indicates that filing of a complaint in court is not taking cognizance and what exactly constitutes taking cognizance is different from filing of a complaint. Since the magisterial action in this case was beyond the period of one year from the date of the commission of the offence the Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance when he did in view of the bar under section 9 of the Act. We accordingly allow the appeal and quash the prosecution. The writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed.