A case was lodged on 20.10.1991 for commission of offence of theft of cable in Moonidih area of B.C.C.L. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was submitted under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code on 2.1.1992 but the cognizance of the offence was taken on 27.11.1996. Since cognizance of the offence was taken after five years of the commission of the offence of theft, punishable for a period of three years, an application was filed for discharge of the petitioner from the case taking a plea that order taking cognizance is itself barred by limitation. That application was rejected. Against that, Cr. Rev. No.31 of 2003 was preferred before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, who remanded the matter back to the trial court to pass a fresh order on the petition filed for discharge. However, learned Magistrate again rejected the petition for discharge on 25.8.2006.

2. Being aggrieved with that order, Cr. Rev. No.352 of 2006 was filed before the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad which on transfer was heard by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-FTC No.5, Dhanbad.

3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and placing his reliance on the decision rendered in a case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of A.P [(2003) 8 SCC 559] and also on a decision rendered in a case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [(2007) 7 SCC 394] held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation relevant date be considered as the date of filing of the complaint or initiating criminal proceeding and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate and thereby affirmed the order passed by the trial court whereby prayer for discharge had been rejected by the leaned Magistrate.

4. Being aggrieved with those orders, this application has been filed.

5. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that from bare perusal of the provision as contained in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there remains no doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, relevant date would be the date when the cognizance of the offence is taken and not the date on which complaint or criminal proceeding is initiated and that the wording of the said provision is so unambiguous that the court would be tempted to abide by the letter of law and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh [(1981) 3 SCC 34] has taken the same view by holding that whether it is the State or a private complaint it must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution falling on the ground of limitation. On the same line, there are several other decisions. But in course of time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of A.P (supra) and also in a case of Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (supra) has taken a different view wherein it has been held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of the complaint or initiating criminal proceeding. The said view has been taken in a case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of A.P (supra) on the premise that taking cognizance is an act of the court over which prosecuting agency or the complainant has no control and on account of fault on the part of the court, if the court does not take cognizance within the time prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the parties should not be allowed to be suffered on that count but not passing an order by the court during the prescribed period, one cannot attach fault on the part of the court. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Mithilesh Kumari and another vs. Prem Behari Khare [(1989) 2 SCC 95] which was the matter relating to Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 wherein it has been held that delay in disposal of an appeal cannot be termed an action of the court.

6. Th