R.P.SINHA, J.

1. This application was first placed before a learned single Judge of the Court who by his order dated 14-8-1978, directed that since the question involved in this case related to the interpretation of Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the new Code ), it should be heard by a Division Bench. Accordingly, the case was placed before a Division Bench which, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed an order on 16-3-1979, stating the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the application and after framing the following question referred it to the Full Bench for consideration :-

"Whether only the cognizance of an offence should be taken within the period prescribed under Sub-Section (2) of Sec. 468 or even the order for issuance of processes should be passed within that period" ?

Thereafter this case was placed for hearing before us.

2 The application was filed on behalf of the petitioners for quashing the order passed on 17-2-1976, by which processes were ordered to be issued against the petitioners for standing trial for offences under Sections 379, 323 and 342, of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 2-12-1972, and a petition of complaint was Filed against the petitioners on 5-12-1972. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation on that very date and the petition of complaint was sent to another Magistrate for inquiry and report. The Inquiring Magistrate after examining some witnesses returned the papers as, according to him, the complainant was not taking any interest. That report was placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 17-2-1976, and after perusing the statement of witnesses examined during the inquiry he passed an order taking cognizance under Sections 379, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue processes against the petitioners.

3. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners before the Division Bench that in view of the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 of the new Code, no cognizance for the said offences could have been taken after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Sec. 468, of the new Code. However, it was conceded that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 17-2-1976 purporting to take cognizance was merely an order for issue of processes against the petitioners on the Chief Judicial Magistrate having been satisfied that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against them.

4. There cannot be any doubt that under Chapter XIV of the new Code the conditions requisite for initiation of the proceeding are stated. Sec.190 deals with the cognizance of offences by the Magistrate and lays dawn that subject to the provision of that Chapter any Magistrate of the First Class and any Magistrate of the Second Class specially empowered in this behalf under Sub-S. (2) may take cognizance of any offence, (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report of such facts and (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. Then, under the provision of Sec.200 of the new Code, the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the complaint has to examine on oath the complainant and the witnesses present if any, and thereafter he may issue processes or postpone the issue of processes against the accused. If the processes are not issued by the Magistrate outright after taking cognizance and examination of witnesses, then in that case the Magistrate has to proceed under the provision of Sec.202 of the new Code. In this case, as will be evident, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 2-12-1972, and the petition of complaint was filed on 5-12-1972 and on that very date the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation. So there cannot be any doubt that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offe