“Nullum tempus occurrit regi”, which originated in the 1250s, which means that the crown isn’t dependent upon statutes of limitations. This implies the crown can continue with activities that would be banished whenever brought by a person because of the progression of time.
Criminal law has consistently been one of the most significant parts of law since it manages the most genuine offenses and it assists with protecting the general public from falling into the condition of chaos. The prime goal of criminal procedure is to give a full and reasonable trial to the offender by contemplating the standards of natural justice. Trial procedure including insight i.e. cognizance of offense, start of procedures, review system and lastly decisions.
The limitation period of taking the cognizance of offence is given in Chapter XXXVI from Section 467 to 473) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
The word Cognizance has come from French term “Connaissance” which means “recognition, familiarity” in literal sense. The Anglo-Norman word “Conysance” which means “later, knowledge”. It has not well-defined in the Criminal procedural law but its meaning is derived from the number of examples and judicial decrees.
In Criminal Procedure, 1973, Chapter XXXVI (Section 467 – 473), states limitation periods for taking cognizance of offences, contingent on the gravity of those offenses which are interlinked with the punishments but separately.
The method of reasoning behind the incorporation of a time of limitation was that the declaration of witnesses gets more vulnerable with the slip by of time and memory and therefore the odds of blunders in decisions increment, since the evidence gets more fragile.
DEFINITION in Cr.P.C –
Section 467 – It states that period specified in section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. With the end goal of this part, ” time of cognizance” is endorsed as the period determined for accepting the cognizance of offense as indicated in Section 468 except if the setting in any case requires.
Section 468 – According to Section 468(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 with the exception of as in no Court will take cognizance of an offense of the category indicated in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the time of limitation.
2. The time of confinement will be: –
(a) 6 months, if the offense is punishable with fine as it were;
(b) 1 year, if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for a term not surpassing 1 year;
(c) 3 years, if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for a term surpassing 1 year however not surpassing 3 years.
3. For the reasons for this section, the time of confinement i.e. limitation, according to offenses which might be attempted together, will be resolved concerning the offense which is punishable with the more serious punishment or, the most extreme punishment.
In Nirmal Kanti Roy vs State of West Bengal, the Apex Court held that Section 468 isn’t valid to an offence under Section 7 (1) (A) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Section 469 – Commencement –
1. The time of limitation, corresponding to a guilty party, will begin, –
(a) on the date of the offense; or
(b) where the commission of the offense was not known to the individual distressed by the offense or to any police, the first day on which such offense goes to the information on such individual or to any officer, whichever is prior; or
(c) where it isn’t known by whom the offense was done, the first day on which the personality of the guilty party is known to the individual oppressed by the offense or to the police officer making examination concerning the offense, whichever is prior.
2. In processing the said period, the day from which such period is to be figured will be prohibited.
The principal i.e. the first day from which the time of limitation starts to be determined will not be incorporated while processing the period of limitation. If the offence which is punishable only with fine was committed in 1st April, 2020. Then the period of limitation will start from 2nd April 2020 not 1st April 2020.
In case, State of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar, The court held that the period of limitation will not start from the date when sample was taken but will start from the ate when the report of Public analysts was accepted in case of adulteration.
Section 470 – Exclusion of time
The time during which such individual is accusing another arraignment with due diligence whether it is a court of Appeal, or in the Court of the primary case against the guilty party.
Such period won’t be barred except if another trial is identified with similar conditions or the facts of the case for which the past indictment has been started or the court where the past continuing has been being can’t engage the case because of absence of purview.
- In the situation where the institution of proceeding is remained by the order or directive, the time will avoid:
1. The period during the continuation of such order or directive.
2. The day on which it was made or was given.
3. The day on which it was withdrawn
- In a case where the notification of prosecution of offense is given or the past assent or the authorization of the Government is compulsory under this law or some other law until further notice in power the time during which: –
1. The time (period) of notice or;
2. The period for getting the assent or authorization of the Government will be barred.
3. It additionally determines that the time which is required for taking the authorization or the consent from the Government or some other authority – The date on which the application was made for taking the assent or endorse and;
The date on which authorization was granted shall be excluded.
- In computing the time of limitation such period is to be rejected
1. The time during which the guilty party is missing from India or from any domain which is outside from India yet is under the organization of Central Government.
2. The time during which the guilty party has stayed away from arrest either by disguising himself or either by fleeing
Section 471 – Exclusion of date when Court is closed –
The time of confinement terminates on a day when the Court is closed during its normal working hours, the Court may take insight on the day when the Court revives. In the situation when the time of limitation terminates upon the arrival of the conclusion of court procedures the cognizance of an offense is taken when the court revives.
Section 472 – At the point when the offense continues:
At the point when the offenses proceed or are going on; new limitation starts to run at each second, the offense is recreated all through the full term that it proceeds.
Section 473 – Extension period for some case
This section is important as it focuses around regulating equity i.e. justice. It allows to the plaintiff or the oppressed individual to found the suit considerably after the expiry of the given period of limitation. This section overruling effect on Section 468, Cr.P.C.
In case, Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors, the Supreme Court set out the importance and the extent of term ‘taking cognizance’. It also stated that Section 473 of Cr. P.C, which provides for the extension of the period of limitation in specific cases, is a nonobstante clause.
In any case, in Criminal Procedure Code Chapter XXXVI doesn’t subvert the privilege of the offender. It means to find some kind of harmony between the interest of the plaintiff and the interest of the offender. While this limitation energizes determination by accommodating restriction, it doesn’t intend to throw out all trials on the ground of postponement. It has additionally been expressed that where the legislature or council needed to treat certain offenses in an unexpected way, it given to limitation in the section itself.
References –
(n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullum_tempus_occurrit_regi
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/286506/
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599077/
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512155/
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/321946/
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1590825/
(n.d.). Retrieved from Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574291/
(2019, May 17). Retrieved from Ipleaders : https://blog.ipleaders.in/limitation-taking-offence-cr-p-c/
Arakeri, J. (2019, May 17). Limitation for taking of an Offence under Cr.PC.
Shweta Vashist, V. G. (2015, June 24). India: Crime Never Dies.
This article is written by Saumya Upadhyay, 2nd year law student at Xavier Law School, Xavier University, Bhubaneswar.
Also Read – Magistrate Power To Take Cognizance Of An Offence
