( 1 ) THIS criminal revision case is against the order holding that the complaint is not barred by limitation under S. 468, Cr. P. C. The petitioner is charged with an offence punishable under S. 24 (1) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 for furnishing a declaration omitting Ac. 7. 54 cents of land. The petitioner took the plea before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banaganapalle that the complaint is barred by limitation under S. 468, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate held that the period of limitation has to be computed from 13-12-1979 the date of the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal and negatived the contention.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the date on which the order was passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal is not the relevant date for computing the period of limitation but the relevant date is as provided under Ss. 468 and 469, Cr. P. C. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the heirarchy of authorities are seized of the matter under Land Reforms Act and the prosecution launched with reference to the failure to file a declaration is subject to the final order passed by the tribunal and as such the period has to be computed from the date of the Order of the tribunal.

( 3 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to get at S. 468, Cr. P. C. which is as follows :-"468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of and offence of the category specified in sub-section (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 the 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 purpose 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. "section 468, Cr. P. C. prescribes different periods of limitations relatable to the punishment for offences. S. 468, Cr. P. C. postulates that the period of limitation shall be three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not three years. Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act Provides that, in the event of filing false declaration, the punishment is for a term which may extend to two years. In view of punishment up to two years, clause (c) of sub-section (2) of S. 468, Cr. P. C. squarely applies to the situation. The computation of the period of limitation is provided under S. 469, Cr. P. C. which is as follows :-"469 (1) The Period of limitation, in relation to an offender, shall commence, - (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) Where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police Officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded. "the date of the commission of offence or the knowledge of such offence to the aggrieved person or the concerned authority affords a starter for reckoning the period of limitation. The date of filing the declaration itself can be considered as the date of offence from which limitation may have to be computed under clause (a) but however clause (b) enables the reckoning of limitation from the date of knowledge of filing t