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 section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, 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 sections 467 to 473 coming under Chapter XXXVI with the caption 'Limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences' in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1974). Those 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, (1970) 2 S.C.J. 299: (1970) M.L.J. (Crl.) 599: (1969) 2 S.C.R. 438: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 962, about the delay in launching a prosecution, observing:

(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 roaring 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.