ORDER :

1. Mr. K. Swami, counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases v. Sarah Mathew, Criminal OP No. 12001 of 1997. D/d. 17-7-2002 (Mad) was clearly wrong in holding that the proceeding against the respondents was barred by limitation, as provided under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because the order issuing summons against the accused was passed by the Magistrate after three years from the date of the occurrence, even though the complaint was admittedly filed within the period of limitation. In support of the contention, he relies upon a two Judges' Bench decision of this Court in Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 in which, on an examination of the provisions contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was held that the Court can take cognizance of an offence, the complaint of which is filed before it, within a period of limitation prescribed and, if need be, after excluding such time which is legally excludable. It further held that the limitation prescribed is not for taking cognizance within the period of limitation, but for taking cognizanc