KATHAMUTHU Vs. BALAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above matter is placed before us on a reference made by S. A. Kader, J., for decision on the following question, viz., where the launching of a criminal prosecution is after the lapse of the period of limitation prescribed under S.468, Cr. P.C., can the court condone the delay after taking cognizance of the offence, or whether such condonation of delay should precede the taking cognizance of the offence, since there is a cleavage of opinion on this question.

(2.) Before answering this question, we have to go into the scope and intendment of the newly introduced provisions contained in Ss. 467 to 473 coming under Chapter XXXVI with the caption "Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences" in the Criminal PC 1973, (Act II of 1974). These provisions prescribe various periods of limitation for launching a criminal prosecution in certain categories of cases. Under the old Code, no period of limitation was prescribed for launching a prosecution and the court would not throw out, a private complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay though inordinate delay might be a ground for doubting the prosecution version. It would be apposite in this connection to recall a critical view expressed by the Supreme Court in Asst. Customs, Collector v. L.R. Melwani AIR 1970 SC 962 about the delay in launching a prosecution observing : "The question of delay in filing a complaint may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in arriving at the final verdict." The general rule of limitation is contained in, the Latin maxims "Vigilantibus et non, Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt", meaning "the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are assisted by the laws." In other words, in all actions; suits and other proceedings at law and in equity, the diligent and careful plaintiff is favoured to the prejudice of the person who is careless. But, an exception is made in favour of the crown : Nullum Tempus Aut Lucus occurrit Regi" meaning that no time runs against, or place affects, the king. This implies that there can be no laches on the part of the king, i.e. the State and that therefore no delay will bar his/its right. However, the new provisions under Ss.467 to 473 of the Code, prescribing the periods of limitation in certain categories of cases, having regard to the gravity of the offences and other relevant factors, have been introduced for the first time in the Criminal Procedure Code, as the Joint Select Committee thought desirable that the Code of Criminal Procedure of India should contain; such periods of limitation as recommended by the Law Commission after taking into consideration the position of law in this respect prevailing in many other countries of the world. Of these sections, S.467 defines the expression "period of limitation". Section 468 provides that except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-sec.(2) thereof, after the expiry of the period of limitation. Section 469 speaks about the commencement of the period of limitation. Section. 470 enumerates how the period of limitation has to be computed. Section 471 provides for the exclusion of the date on which the court is closed. Section 472 states how the period has to be computed in the case of continuing offences. Section 473 provides for extension of the period of limitation in certain cases. The Parliament, by Act XII of 1974, viz., the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974, has made Chapter XXXVI of Act II of 1974 inapplicable to economic offences under specific Acts with effect from 1-4-1974.

(3.) As we are now concerned only with the limited question as to whether the condonation of delay, if any, in launching a criminal prosecution beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Code, should precede the taking cognizance of the offence, it is not necessary for us to make a roving enquiry about the intendment of all the sections coming under Chapter XXXVI, but suffice it to examine the scope of Sections 468 and 473 in the above background.