Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 473 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 473 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Dutt And Anr on 19 November, 1999
Section 468 creates a bar for taking cognizance of offences after lapse of period of limitation. Section 473 vests power upon the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. Thus in a given case where the Court is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case that in the interest of justice the delay in the prosecution may be condoned, it can do so but then by giving reasons. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt and Anr. reported in AIR 2000 Supereme Court 207 that the power of taking cognizance by Court after expiry of period of limitation has to be exercised by speaking order. The discretion conferred upon the Court, has to be exercised judiciously and on well recognized principles. It is well settled that the bar under Section 468 is not in respect of filing/initiation of prosecution but in respect of taking cognizance and that the Court before condonation of delay, in all fairness should issue notice to the accused.
Ram Kripal Prasad And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 January, 1985
3. Mr. G. Rath, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-opp. party, at the other hand, while not disputing the fact, that the order of cognizance was taken after the period of limitation, forcefully submitted that the basic objective of introducing the provisions for limitation for taking cognizance of different offences is meant to protect a person from being harassed by any vexatious allegations/cases. According to him in the present case the complaint petition was filed with utmost promptitude within the period of limitation. Therefore, the delay in taking cognizance would not be fatal to the case and the Court below on being prima facie satisfied that there were materials with regard to commission of the offences has rightly taken cognizance of offences under Sections 294 and 323 of the I.P.C. According to Mr. Rath, the order is just, legal and suffers from no infirmity and as such the same may not be interfered with. He has relied upon the decision of Patna High Court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. in support of such submission.