Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)
Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr vs State Of A.P on 8 October, 2003 cites

Smt. Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada on 18 December, 1996

which means an act of the court shall prejudice no man, or by a delay on the part of the court neither party should suffer, also supports the view that the legislature could not have intended to put a period of limitation on the act of the court of taking cognizance of an offence so as to defeat the case of the complainant. This view of ours is also in conformity with the early decision of this Court in the case of Rashmi Kumar (supra) If this interpretation of Chapter XXXVI of the Code is to be applied to the facts of the case then we notice that the offence was detected on 5.3.1999 and the complaint was filed before the court on 3.3.2000 which was well within the period of limitation, therefore, the fact that the court took cognizance of the offence only on 25.3.1999 about 25 days after it was filed, would not make the complaint barred by limitation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 276 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1