BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, J.

1. The question that arises for consideration in this case is whether the cognizance of the offence taken against the petitioners under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the 12th June, 1975, is barred in terms of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It arises in this manner.

2. On the 27th of October, 1972, a first information report was lodged by one Ram Abhilakh Tiwari at the Kadamkuan police station alleging, inter alia, that he had been assaulted by the Petitioner No.2 (Muralidhar Mishra) and had later been confined in the office of petitioner No.1 (Vasudeo Agrawal) located in Mohalla Kankarbag. The police registered a case under sections 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, which was numbered as Kadamkuan P.S. case No. 72 dated 27.10.1972. Investigation was taken up by the police and, ultimately, a final report non-cognizable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was submitted. It appears that the said final report was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna for acceptance on the 25th February, 1975. On receipt of the final report, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, his recorded the following order on the 12th of June, 1975.

"In this case police has submitted F.I.R. non-cog, under section 323 I.P.C. It may be accepted, which is accepted. Cognizance taken against accused persons named in column 4 of the final report. Summon the accused fixing 9.8.1975 (for) appearance."

The present application is directed against this order and it has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under section 323 after the expiry of one year from the date of the occurrence.

3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new Code) came into force on the 1st of April, 1974. Certain provisions providing for limitation in taking cognizance of certain offence were inserted in Chapter XXXVI of the new Code. There were no such provisions in the old Code (Criminal Procedure Code, 1898). Section 467 of the new Code mentions that the period of limitation means the period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. Section 468 imposes a bar on taking cognizance after the lapse of the period of limitation. It reads as under:–

"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."

Section 469 only lays down the point of time from which limitation against prosecution shall commence. Section 470 provides for exclusion of time in certain cases in computing the period of limitation.

4. The point urged on behalf of the petitioners is simple. It is stated that the case against the petitioners was instituted on the 27th of October, 1972, when the old Code was in existence. The police investigation having been initiated in accordance with the old Code, could be continued and disposed of under the old Code, but no further steps such as taking cognizance of the offence could be taken under the old Code after the new Code came into existence. In the present case, although cognizance was taken after the new Code came into existence the same could not be done in view of the express provisions engrafted in the new Code.

5. A bar has been imposed under section 468 on taking cognizance after the lapse of certain period in relation to certain categories of cases. Such cases enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 468 are those which are punishable with fine only or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The period of limitation has been prescribed on a graded scale. The intention of Parliament appears to be to make provision for securing speedy disposal of cases specially those of petty nature. It is of