1. Both these revision applications are directed against the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I), Ranchi in R.C.No.5 of 1973 whereby prayer made by the petitioners to discharge them from the case on amongst other on the ground that the cognizance taken against the petitioners on 25.4.1978 is barred by limitation.

2. The facts giving rise these revision applications are that on 29.4.1970 Inspectorate of Armaments, Ranchi sent 37 drawings pertaining to Recoil System and Recoil Indicator 105/53 I.A of Vijayant Tank to the Commercial Manager of the H.E.C, vide its secret letter dated 29.4.1970 with a view to explore possibility of manufacturing the components. In that process of exploring possibilities of manufacturing the components three drawings out of 37 got lost. When the matter was reported to the C.B.I, the case was registered in the Ranchi Branch of the police establishment for investigation. During investigation, it was detected that it was the petitioner, S. Seshadri, who was posted as Junior Sales Engineer (C & F) in H.E.C as well as the other petitioner, K.L.Dutta posted as Sales Manaer in the Commercial Division of H.E.C were responsible for the theft of those drawings. Accordingly, complaint was lodged on 29.3.1978 alleging therein that the petitioners have committed offence under Section 5(4) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secret Act, 1923. On sanction being accorded by the competent authority, cognizance of the offence was taken on 25.4.1978.

3. Being aggrieved with that order, an application was filed before the court below to recall the order taking cognizance as the same was time barred but the prayer made by one of the petitioners was rejected. Thereupon the petitioner Kunja Lal Gupta moved before this Court in Cr. Misc. No.6558 of 1980. The Court having found that the order in terms of Section 473 of he Code of Criminal Procedure has been passed without hearing the petitioner, disposed of the case directing the court concerned to examine the question of limitation afresh as well as legality of the cognizance at the stage of framing the charge. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the C.B.I, vide S.L.P (Cr.) No.2183 of 1982 which was dismissed on 7.10.1983. Thereafter the prosecution before charge examined seven witnesses. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence before charge, an application was filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharging the petitioners from the case on the ground that sufficient materials are not there for framing charge and also challenged the order taking cognizance being barred by limitation. That application was dismissed, vide order dated 21.1.2010 by holding that sufficient materials are there for framing charge. At the same time, the court on the point of limitation passed an order for condonation of delay in the interest of justice by exercising power under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . That order has been challenged in these two applications.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the order under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioners is barred by limitation as first information report had been lodged on 6.7.1973 for the offence which occurred in the year 1970 and the cognizance of the offence under Section 5(4) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Official Secret Act, 1923 has been taken on 25.4.1978 which is beyond three years and as such, it is barred by limitation by virtue of the provision as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I would submit that though first information report had been lodged for the commission of the offence of theft in the year 1973 but the offenders (petitioners) could only be identified on 17.8.1974. Upon the culprits being identified, permission was soug