Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

On a careful reading of the provision, it is discernible that except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the Cr.P.C., no court shall take cognizance  of offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2) of the Section after expiry of the period of limitation. Admittedly, this provision is applicable to all the offences charged under the IPC. In this case, the appellant is called up to answer charges under Section 409, 465, 471 and 477A IPC. If we look into Sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C., it can be seen that the period of limitation prescribed in the Cr.P.C. is on the basis of the nature and quantum of punishment prescribed for the offence. Section 465 IPC deals with forgery. The punishment prescribed therefor by the IPC is imprisonment for two years or fine or both. Likewise, Section 471 IPC also prescribes the same punishment for using a forged document as genuine, which is known to the accused to be a forged one. It is, therefore, evident that these two offences will fall within the category of offences prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. Sub-section (3) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. makes it amply clear that for the purpose of the Section, the period of limitation shall be determined in relation to offences which may be tried together, with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or the most severe punishment, as the case may be. The catchwords employed in the Sub-section are 'for the purpose of this Section' (underline supplied). It can be seen that this Section applies only to offences for which a period of limitation is prescribed in Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. The provision prescribes a period of limitation for offences punishable with fine only and for offences punishable with imprisonment of  different durations. Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. prescribes the period of limitation for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and Clause (c) of the same Sub-section prescribes period of limitation for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years. It can also be seen that no limitation is prescribed for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years. Another condition required to satisfy the mandate of Section 468(3) Cr.P.C. is that the offences mentioned in various limbs of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. must be triable together. This provision was introduced by Act 45 of 1978. It is note worthy that under the earlier Code of 1898, no period of limitation was prescribed for launching a criminal prosecution. So much so, the court could not have thrown out a private complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay, though the delay might be a good ground for doubting the prosecution story. The object, which the statute seeks to subserve, is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore of utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or by a private party, must abide by the letter of law or else it has to take the risk of failing on the ground of limitation.

11. Section 465 IPC prescribes the punishment for 'forgery', the term defined in Section 463 IPC. In order to commit an offence of forgery  as defined under Section 463 IPC, the accused must be guilty of making any false document or false electronic record, etc. with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property, etc. It must also be established that the said act was done with an intent to commit fraud or fraud might be committed thereby. Here also a mental element of dishonesty is required.