Prem Shanker Sahay, J.

This application is directed against the order dated 26.4.75 taking cognizance against the petitioners under section 323 of the Indian Penal code.

2. On 8.6.72 one Yugal Kishore sharaff lodged a first information report against the petitioners alleging offence under section 323 I.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet was submitted on 26.4.75 and on the same date the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and after that on 28.6.75 processes were issued against them. Being aggrived by the aforesaid order taking cognizance, the petitioners have moved this court for quashing.

3. This case was earlier placed before a learned single Judge who has referred it to a Division Bench. At the time of argument the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not raised all those points which were raised by him before the learned single Judge and has raised only one point namely, that the cognizance taken against the petitioners is barred by section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In this connection he has submitted that the occurrence took place on 8.6.72 and the cognizance was tat en on 26.4.75 Section 468 reads as follows:-

"468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall" take cognizance of an 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 imprisonment for as term exceeding one year.

(e) Three years, if two offences are punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years."

The maximum sentence under section 323 I.P.C. is one year and, therefore, no court could take cognizance of an offence under section 323 after the expiry of one year from the date of occurrence. In my opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is well founded and must be accepted. The occurrence, as stated above, took place on 8.6.72 and the cognizance was taken on 26.4.75 much beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 (2) (b) of the Code. I would, therefore allow this application and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 26.4.75 taking against the petitioners.

Application allowed.