Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 April, 2022
“1. Mr. K. Swami, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the High Court [Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases v. Sarah Mathew, Criminal OP No. 12001 of 1997,
decided on 17-7-2002 (Mad)] was clearly wrong in holding that the
proceeding against the respondents was barred by limitation, as
provided under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, because the order issuing summons against the
accused was passed by the Magistrate after three years from the
date of the occurrence, even though the complaint was admittedly
filed within the period of limitation. In support of the contention,
he relies upon a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Bharat
Damodar Kale7 in which, on an examination of the provisions
12 (2014) 2 SCC 102
18
contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it
was held that the Court can take cognizance of an offence, the
complaint of which is filed before it, within the period of limitation
prescribed and, if need be, after excluding such time which is
legally excludable. It further held that the limitation prescribed is
not for taking cognizance within the period of limitation, but for
taking cognizance of an offence in regard to which a complaint is
filed or prosecution is initiated beyond the period of limitation
prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure.