A Study of the Law of Limitation under Cr.P.

C to File a Case

Introduction

Limitation, etymologically, refers to a restriction or a restraint from doing anything. In its

ordinary legal and popular sense, limitation connotes to the time within which an action may
be brought or a case may be filed before a court to preserve a right. Aiyar’s Lexicon defines
‘limitation period’ as “a statutory period after which a lawsuit or a prosecution cannot be
brought in a court”. This article aims to analyse the limitation period to file a case under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It is common legal prudence that a case cannot be filed or heard after a certain period of time.
The law is based on the maxim in Roman law that states ‘Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus
Jura Subveniunt’, i.e. law comes to the assistance of those who are vigilant with their rights
and not those who sleep on their rights. Thus, after the statutory period of limitation has
expired, the court is not legally bound to hear or try the case. Law of limitation has several
exceptions but in a nutshell, it is relevant to know that limitation period are not absolute and
can be condoned at the discretion of the court.

Limitation to Prosecute under Cr.P.C

Sections 467 to 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deal with the law related to the
limitation to initiate a prosecution. These provisions explain, in detail, the duration of
limitation, when it starts, when it ends and what happens if the case is not filed within the
limitation period.

Period of Limitation and bar to prosecute

Section 467 defines the expression ‘period of limitation’ as the period specified in section
468 for taking cognizance of an offence. The definition uses the term “means” which implies
that the definition is exhaustive and the period of limitation shall include only those periods
mentioned in Section 468 irrespective of the period mentioned in the Limitation Act, 1963.

Section 468 (2) divides the offences under the penal laws into three groups and prescribes
limitation for each group. Firstly, offences which are punishable only with fine will have a
period of limitation amounting to six months. Secondly, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year the period of limitation shall be one year.
Lastly, if the offence is one punishable with an imprisonment of more than one year but not
exceeding three years, the period of limitation shall be three years.

Thus, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the three categories specified above
after the expiry of the period of limitation. The code does not talk about the offences which
are punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years. It is implied and followed
that offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years are not barred
by limitation and can be filed whenever possible provided the court is satisfied with the
reasons provided for delay in filing the case.
Moreover, Section 468 (3) also provides that if there are several offences which can be tried
together in one trial, the period of limitation shall be that of the offence which is punishable
with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. For
instance, A joins a group of terrorists who were planning to bomb the Taj Mahal and initiates
executing their plans with them.

He is caught by the police during one of his visits and charged with ‘being a member of an
unlawful assembly’ punishable with six months’ imprisonment, ‘joining an unlawful
assembly armed with deadly weapon’ punishable with two years’ imprisonment and ‘rioting
armed with deadly weapon’ punishable with 3 years’ imprisonment. Thus, since the
maximum punishment is for ‘rioting armed with a deadly weapon’ which is punishable with 3
years’ imprisonment, this shall be considered to calculate the period of limitation.

Commencement of the Period of Limitation

The period of limitation, in any normal circumstances, shall always commence on the date on
which the offence was committed. Even if the case is reported later, the period of limitation
for the purpose of commencement of trial shall be computed from the date of the commission
of an offence and not on the date when it was reported before the police.

However, the code makes provision for circumstances where the date of offence is not known
to the victim or the police officer. According to Section 469 (1) (b), where the commission of
the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the
first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any police
officer, whichever is earlier shall be the commencement date for computation of period of
limitation.

Moreover, when the identity of the offender is not known to the victim or the police, the
period of limitation shall commence when the identity of such a person is known. This
ensures that the time spent on an investigation by the police does not deprive the victim of
his/her rights. Section 469 (2) also states that the day when the commission of an offence is
known or when the identity of the accused is known, as the case may be, shall be excluded
while computing the limitation period.

Essential Considerations

While computing the period of limitation, the courts should take into consideration several
points such as:

If a person has already initiated a prosecution against the accused in the same factual matter
but the court is not of competent jurisdiction and the case is dismissed, the court that has
competent jurisdiction to try the accused should exclude the time spent by the prosecutor
while diligently prosecuting the accused in the wrong court. This provision should also apply
to any appeal or revision initiated before a court without jurisdiction.

If a person is prevented from prosecuting the accused owing to an order of injunction by a

competent court, the period during which the injunction is in force, the day on which the
order was issued and the day when the injunction is withdrawn should be excluded while
computation.

If an offence requires issuance of notice to the other party (e.g. Dishonourment of cheque) or
a prior sanction or consent of the Government (e.g. offences against public servants), the time
required to serve the notice and receive the reply and the time required to obtain the consent
or sanction from the Government should be excluded while computing the period of
limitation.

If the accused or offender has been absconding from police or has left India in order to
abscond and evade justice, the period during which he has been outside India or been
absconding should be excluded during the computation.

Where the period of limitation expires on a day when the Court is closed, the Court may take
cognizance on the day on which the Court reopens.

If an offence is a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every
moment of the time during which the offence continues. For instance, A kidnapped B and hid
him in a warehouse in the factory where he works. After a few days, when he did not receive
the ransom, he transferred the kid to another place and again waited for ransom. This is,
therefore, a continuing offence and thus, the limitation period shall start every time a step is
taken towards the commission of an offence.

Condonation of Delay

In Singbel GPU Construction Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. CCE, Chief Justice Vijai Bist of
the Sikkim High Court observed that “We are conscious and aware that the law of limitation
is sufficiently elastic to allow and enable the concerned Authorities to apply it for substantial
justice”. Considering this, the law of limitation is always relaxed according to the procedure
established by law and the guidelines given by courts.

Section 473 of the Code allows any court to take cognizance of any offence beyond the
period of limitation if it is satisfied that the reasons for such delay has sufficiently been
explained and it is necessary to allow the application to condone the delay in the interest of
justice. In the Singbel case, the court dismissed the application of the appellant to condone
the delay stating that the reasons for the delay were not sufficiently explained.

The court observed that “merely because a non-pedantic approach should be adopted to an
application for condonation of delay it is not essential that every delay including those in
which the drafting has been done in a haphazard manner and with nary a care to detail or
explanation pertaining to the delay with dates thereof be condoned”

The landmark case for condonation of delay is Esha Bhattacharjee v, Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy. The court specifically provided that any application for condonation of delay must
be drafted with care and circumspection and not in haste or in a haphazard manner
harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the
principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. The
misuse of the term justice must not be tolerated while dealing with such applications.