Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of U.P. & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2013, Decided on May 9th,
2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“Section 468 Cr.PC places an embargo upon
court from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the limitation
period provided therein. Section 469 prescribes when the period of limitation
begins. Section 473 enables the court to condone delay, provided that the court
is satisfied with the explanation furnished by the prosecution/complainant, and
where, in the interests of justice, extension of the period of limitation is
called for. The principle of condonation of delay is based on the general rule
of the criminal justice system which states that a crime never dies, as has
been explained by way of the legal maxim, nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi
(lapse of time is no bar to the Crown for the purpose of it initiating
proceeding against offenders). A criminal offence is considered as a wrong
against the State and also the society as a whole, even though the same has
been committed against an individual”. [Para 6]
“The question of delay in launching a
criminal prosecution may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration while
arriving at a final decision, however, the same may not itself be a ground for
dismissing the complaint at the threshold. Moreover, the issue of limitation
must be examined in light of the gravity of the charge in question”. [Para
7]
“The court, while condoning delay has to
record the reasons for its satisfaction, and the same must be manifest in the
order of the court itself. The court is further required to state in its
conclusion, while condoning such delay, that such condonation is required in the
interest of justice”. [Para 8]
“To sum up, the law of limitation prescribed
under the Cr.PC., must be observed, but in certain exceptional circumstances,
taking into consideration the gravity of the charge, the Court may condone delay,
recording reasons for the same, in the event that it is found necessary to
condone such delay in the interest of justice.” [Para 9]
Thus following points may be noted:
(i) The
question of delay in launching a criminal prosecution may be a circumstance to
be taken into consideration while arriving at a final decision, however, the
same may not itself be a ground for dismissing the complaint at the threshold.
(ii) Law of
limitation prescribed under the Cr.PC., must be observed, but in certain
exceptional circumstances
(iii) The
Court may condone delay, recording reasons for the same, in the event that it
is found necessary to condone such delay in the interest of justice.
The Court also noted the following case laws:
Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar
Mohanty, AIR 2007 SC 2762;
Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368;
Noida Entrepreneurs Association
v. Noida & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 2112).
State of Maharashtra v. Sharad
Chandra Vinayak Dongre & Ors., AIR 1995 SC 231;
State of H.P. v. Tara Dutt &
Anr., AIR 2000 SC 297
To see full text follow the link: