( 1 ) NOBODY appears for the respondents. I have heard the learned public Prosecutor and gone through the record.

( 2 ) THE complaints filed before the trial Court in terms of Section 14 of the Andhra pradesh Entertainment Tax Act have been dismissed and the accused have been acquitted. Against this, these appeals are filed by the State. The accused is the same in all the four appeals and the facts are also same, therefore, all the four appeals are decided together.

( 3 ) IT appears that complaints were filed admittedly beyond the period of limitation under Section 14 of Andhra Pradesh entertainment Tax Act. For violation of any law under the Entertainment Tax Act the punishment is only of fine. Hence the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr. PC would be six months. All the complaints were filed beyond six months of the occurrence. Therefore, the complaints were clearly barred by limitation. But, it appears that the Magistrate committed a mistake by taking cognizance of the matter and after putting the accused persons to trial finally acquitted them on merits as well as on the ground that the complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation. Section 468 Cr. PC lays down: "468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. " in my view, Section 468 Cr. PC is clear that if a complaint is made beyond time the magistrate has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance. In order to assume jurisdiction to try a complaint, it is a duty cast on the Magistrate to see that whether the complaint is made within time and if not whether any application has been made under section 473 Cr. PC. If no application is made under Section 473 Cr. PC and the magistrate finds that the complaint has been instituted beyond limitation, he has no jurisdiction to try the same and he must invariably dismiss the compliant The bar created under Section 468 Cr. PC is to the taking of cognizance and once cognizance is taken in matters which are barred by limitation that becomes illegal as the magistrate who takes cognizance in such a case, takes the cognizance without jurisdiction. However, if an application under Section 473 Cr. PC is made and the magistrate concerned is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained and the delay needs to be condoned because of the interests of justice, he has to pass an order to that effect before taking cognizance. Admittedly in these cases no such application under Section 473 Cr. PC was made and no extension was granted by the trial Court.

( 4 ) FOR these reasons, I do not find any merit in these appeals, which are accordingly dismissed.