Mohan Shantanagoudar, J: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.61/ 2004 (Sp.C.C.No.50/2008), pending on the file of Addl. Sessions Court, Bidar.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that: the checking staff of KPTCL, Bidar, visited the premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner had committed theft of electricity by-passing the meter. The inspection was conducted on 18.3.2004. Based on the inspection report, complaint is lodged before GESCOM Police Station, Bidar, alleging offences punishable under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed theft of electricity worth Rs. 18,564/-. Based on the complaint, Crime No.61/2004 is registered in the said police station. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed for the aforesaid offences. It is also alleged that petitioner is due a sum of Rs. 18,564/- towards back billing charges and Rs.6,000/- towards compounding fees. Now the matter is pending trial in Special C.C.No.501 2008 before Addl. Sessions Court, Bidar.

3. It is contended by Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that though the complaint is lodged immediately after the inspection, the charge-sheet is stated to have been filed on 16.5.2008. It is further submitted that though the investigation report (charge -sheet) is dated 1-2-2005, the same is actually before the Court on 16.5.2008 i.e., after the lapse of four years and two months from the date of inspection i.e., from the date of cause of action. Thereafter, the Court below has taken cognizance of the offence. She points out from the order sheet maintained by the Court below that the application tot condonation of delay is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the investigation report. The Court below keeping open the question of limitation took cognizance of the offences and registered the case. In this view of the matter, it is contented by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the proceedings vitiate, inasmuch as the cognizance is taken alter the lapse of about four years from the date of cause of action (i.e., Inspection) and the same is hit by the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

The offences in question are punishable with sentence of imprisonment, which may extend up to three years or with fine or both. Under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the prescribed period of limitation to take cognizance of such offence is three years. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that talking cognizance of the offence alter three years of the incident is bad in the eye of law and consequently, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. She also relies upon the judgment of this Court dated 25th August, 2008 passed in Criminal Petition No. 8601/ 2008 - (Venkata Reddy Vs. The State of Karnataka) in support of her contentions.

5. The aforementioned dates as pointed out by the Counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the records. Hence there is no dispute with regard to the dates. The vigilance squad of GESCOM, Bidar, conducted the inspection on 18-3-2004. First information report is lodged pursuant to the inspection report on 19-3-2004 and the' same is registered in Cr.No.61/2004.It is not in dispute that the investigation report is filed by the police on 16-5-2008 i.e., after' about four years and two months from the date of cause of action. It is also not in dispute that the offences alleged are punishable with sentence of imprisonment up to three years. Section 468(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the limitation of three years for taking cognizance in such matters.

It is no doubt true that this Court in Criminal Petition No.8601/2008 has ruled that filing of the charge-sheet beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance of the of