Introduction:
Criminal law in India is one of the most important weapons we possess to fight injustice and anarchy. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the face of criminal law in India. To understand the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) we first need to identify the meaning of substantive and procedural law.
Substantial law is a set of laws that indicate the rules and laws we need to follow as a society. The procedural law provides substantial law with the necessary machinery and substance. It solidifies the substantial law principles by explaining the punishments and the procedures we need to be aware of before disobeying the substantial law. The Criminal Procedure Code holds the procedure for maintenance of substantial law. For every crime that happens, we need to follow certain guidelines post it so that the crime can be dealt with in a systematic manner. To promote this sense of responsibility and to aid the system we have Sections 467 and Section 468 of the Code of criminal procedure which deal with the limitation of Cognizance of offences.
Meaning of Cognizance
In layman language, Cognizance means taking note of something or being aware of something. In a more legal aspect, we can say cognizance of offence means knowing about the offence that has happened. The officer in charge has to be aware of the offence.
Sections 190- 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 talks about the limitations which are subjected to taking cognizance of offences.
Why are Limitations Needed When it Comes to Cognizance of Offences
The limitations which the cognizance of offences is subjected to are important. Once a crime happens, there is a responsibility we owe to inform the respective person in charge of the facts of the crime. This is important to build a society that is ever-improving and is on the road of justice and order.
The relevance of Section 467 of the Code of criminal procedure-
Section 467 of the Criminal Procedure Code-
- Defines what the meaning “limitation of Cognizance of offence” is. The section 467 says that the period of limitation for cognizance of offence is the same time period mentioned in the process of cognizance of offence in Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- It further says that if the time prescribed in Section 468 of the CrPc is infringed, then that would be considered as unconstitutional unless stated otherwise or an amendment is enforced.
This Section provides clarity to the limitation period of cognizance of offence as mentioned in the next section 468 of the Code of criminal procedure, which provides in-depth detail of the same.
The relevance of Section 468 of the Code of criminal procedure-
Section 468 of the Code of criminal procedure specifies the limitation period for Cognizance of certain offences.
The following are-
The limitations in taking the Cognizance of certain offences-
- For offences punishable with fine only, the limitation period would then be six months.
- For offences that are punishable for imprisonment for a term equal to or less than a year, the limitation period would be one year.
- For offences that are punishable for imprisonment for a term that is more than one year but less than three years, the limitation period would bet three years.
An important point to remember is that Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not specify the limitation period for offences that exceed the time period of three years.
Section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code-
This section of the Code of criminal procedure deals with a more factual aspect of the limitation period of the cognizance of offences. It explains the commencement of this period. It states that the limitations period for cognizance of an offence can begin-
- On the exact date when the offence was committed.
- When the party who suffered because of the offence didn’t have knowledge about it or the police officer didn’t know about it; in such cases the first case when one of the above comes to know. ( whichever earlier)
- Where the offender is not known. In these cases the first day when the identity of the offender is known by the victim or the police officer who is involved.
The State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Kumar & Ors- [1]
Facts-
- A senior drug inspector after collecting some samples of drugs from the Jayshree Medical Centre in Vadodara (Gujarat) which were meant for sale on the 29th February 1988, sent them for the respective chemical analysis on the 2nd March 1988.
- On 2nd July 1988, the analyst’s report declared the drugs to be of not a decent quality.
- Drug inspector, after the required investigation, sued the respondents of the case on 3rd February 1990.
- On 28th June 1991, the Directorate of Medical and Health Services in Jaipur registered a complaint against the respondents under various sections of the Drugs Act, 1940.
- The same day as above, the Civil Judge of Jaipur, took cognizance of the aforementioned offence.
- This order by the Judge was questioned by the respondents and them, therefore, reached the High Court.
- The High Court gave the ruling in favour of the respondents and dismissed the further proceedings of the case.
- The petitioners unsatisfied with the High Court’s order reached the Supreme Court.
Issue- Was the complaint made by the petitioners impermissible under Section 468 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
Rule- Section 468 and Section 469 of the Code of criminal procedure.
Analysis- The Court said that the day the drug samples were collected from the medical centre would not be the day the limitation period begins, as on that day there was a mere doubt, but there was no surety of offence being committed. The day when the analysis report of the drug samples came out which proved that the drugs were of a fairly indecent quality, this day was the 2nd July 1988. This was the day when the offence was confirmed. Hence this would be the day since when the limitation period would be considered. Now the magistrate of Jaipur took cognizance of the offence on 28th June 1991 which makes the time period between the date of an offence committed and the date of cognizance less than three months. Thus the case was falling under Section 468 (2) of the Code of criminal procedure and Section 469 of the Code of criminal procedure.
The Magistrate was asked to take the necessary further steps.
The case was permissible under Section 468(2) of the Indian Contract Act.
SECTION 470 OF THE Code of criminal procedure.
This section marks the time period which should not be considered while computing the limitation period for cognizance of offences.
- The time during which the offender is being prosecuted for another case in a Court which can be either a Court of Appeal or the first instance Court for the offender’s running case.
- In cases where a proceeding is put to hold by the way of an injunction, the limitation period for such cases will include the time period of this injunction, the day of the issue of an injunction, the day of the withdrawal of the injunction.
- The time period in which the offender is not in India or from an outside territory but still falls under the ambit of the Union Government.
- The time period during which the offender was in hiding.
Let’s take a brief look at case laws that shed some light on the “non-applicability” part of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code-
- Nirmal Kanti Roy vs State of West Bengal [2]– this case held that the Section 468 of the Code of the criminal procedure cannot be applied for offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act of 1955 [part 7 (1) (a) (2)]
- State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Dutta[3] – this case held that the subsection 3 of Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure, states that the limitation period is to be considered for offences charged and not for offences whose commitment is of a sure nature.
- Venkappa Gurappa Hosur vs Kasawwa[4]– this case laid the stern principle that the limitation period once started will go till the very end.
SECTION 472 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-
Section 472 states that for an ongoing offence, every moment, a fresh limitation period is considered and thus the offence keeps on getting replicated throughout the time it is being carried out.
SECTION 473 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE-
This section is the most important section for the people who are accused of committing the offence as this section permits a valid suit even after the limitation period is over for an offence. Not to mention, this is allowed only under exceptional circumstances.
Discretion of the Court
The Court enjoys it to its discretion to extend the limitation period for a certain offence. It is discretionary and NOT mandatory for the Court.
Following are the conditions for the same-
- If the Court is convinced of the view that the complainant could appear before a Court within the limitation period because of genuine reasons. Facts of the case play a big role here.
- If the Court is convinced with the cause of prolongement in appearing before the Court.
- If the Court feels that to keep the best interest of justice as it’s the priority, it is imperative to extend the limited time period.
Limitation Act
The Act says that even in cases of civil nature, the Court holds the power to extend the time period of limitation when it comes to taking cognizance of certain offences If it is convinced of the facts of the case and of the reason given for the delay in the offender’s appearance before the Court.
The following case laws will give us a better idea about the Act-
State of Himachal Pradesh vs Tara Dutta[5]– This case emphasized on the law that when an extension in the limitation period is being allowed, it should be completely understood by the Magistrate as to why the delay was made as this knowledge was important if we want to uphold the spirit of justice.
Conclusion
A famous Roman Law maxim, “vigilant bus et non dormientibus Jura subventions” states a very important facet of law that seems to be very justified to me. It means that law only helps those who are vigilant and not lazy. Yes, Criminal Law is there to guard us against any injustice or wrongdoing but there is a sense of responsibility we owe too, towards following specific guidelines that aid the system to get rid of the wrongs in our society. And limitation period of taking cognizance of offence guides us towards that.
References:
[1] Petition No. 293 of 1996 dated April 11, 1996
[2] (1998) Cr LJ 3282 (SC).
[3] AIR 2000 SC 297.
[4] July 30, 1984 Second Appeal No.646 of 1976.
[5]AIR 2000 SC 1729.
0 Comments