Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62
Ss. 468, 469, 470, 473 and Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - Bar of limitation under - Date relevant for computation of
period of limitation under, held, is the date when criminal complaint is filed or date of institution of prosecution/criminal
proceedings, and not the date when a court/Magistrate takes cognizance - Scheme of Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473), Law
Commission's Report and the Report of the JPC, taken into consideration - Legal maxims nullum tempus aut locus
occurrit regi; vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt and actus curiae neminem gravabit, applied - Ch. XXXVI
CrPC presents the interplay of these three legal maxims - Provisions of this Chapter, however, are not interpreted solely
on the basis of these maxims - They only serve as guiding principles - Further held, Bharat Damodar Kale, (2003) 8 SCC
559 which is followed in Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394 lays down the correct law - Krishna Pillai, 1990 Supp SCC
121, does not lay down the law correctly on this issue - Reasons for, extensively discussed - Held, there has to be some
amount of certainty or definiteness in matters of limitation relating to criminal offences - As taking cognizance is
application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected offence, a subjective element comes in - It would be unreasonable
to take a view that delay caused by the court in taking cognizance of a case could deny justice to a diligent complainant -
Such an interpretation of S. 468 CrPC would be unsustainable and would render it unconstitutional - Furthermore, an
anomalous situation would arise if date of taking cognizance is considered to be relevant as cognizance may be taken by
Magistrate after the limitation period though the complaint is filed within time - Hence, only harmonious construction
which can be placed on Ss. 468, 469 and 470 CrPC is that Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the
complaint in respect of it is filed/prosecution/criminal proceedings instituted within prescribed limitation period -
Furthermore, complainant or prosecution are entitled to exclude such time as is legally excludable,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 473 - Delay - Use of disjunctive word or in S. 473 - Whether suggests that for the first part of the provision i.e. to find
out whether the delay has been explained or not, notice will have to be issued to the accused and for the latter part i.e. to
decide whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice, no notice will have to be issued - No opinion expressed,
Criminal Trial
What is - Reiterated, taking cognizance is application of mind by the Magistrate/court to the suspected offence -
Whether a Magistrate has taken cognizance or not will depend on facts and circumstances of each case
Interpretation of Statutes
Basic Rules
Application of doctrine of - Held, a court of law would interpret a provision which would help in sustaining the validity of
the law by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than applying a doctrine which would make the
provision unsustainable and ultra vires the Constitution,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 468 - Computation of limitation period under - Relevant date determined in Bharat Kale, (2003) 8 SCC 559, and
Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394, (and affirmed herein) to be the date of filing of complaint or initiation of
prosecution/criminal proceedings applying legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit: the act of court shall prejudice no
man - Validity - Held, use of legal maxims as guiding principles is perfectly justified - Legal maxims are not mandatory
rules but their importance as guiding principles can hardly be underestimated,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - History, object and purpose of, examined - Limitation for prosecution of criminal offences
in general law - Rationale behind, explained - Law Commission's Report and the Report of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee, taken into consideration - Held, Ch. XXXVI was inserted to quicken the prosecution of complaints and to rid
the criminal justice system of inconsequential cases prosecution whereof displayed extreme lethargy, inertia or indolence
- Effort was to make the criminal justice system more orderly, efficient and just by providing period of limitation for certain
offences - Ch. XXXVI strikes a balance between the interest of the complainant and the interest of the accused - Where
the legislature wanted to treat certain offences differently, it provided for limitation in the statutory provision/section
concerned itself - However, it chose to make general provisions for limitation for certain types of offences for the first time
and incorporated them in Ch. XXXVI CrPC - Ch. XXXVI is a code by itself so far as the general law of limitation in regard
to criminal offences is concerned - All provisions of this Chapter will have to be read cumulatively - Ss. 468 and 469 will
have to be read with S. 473,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 473 and Ss. 467 to 472 - Extension of period of limitation under S. 473 - Importance of, explained and stressed -
Held, Ch. XXXVI is a code by itself so far as limitation is concerned - All the provisions of this Chapter will have to be
read cumulatively - Ss. 468 and 469 will have to be read with S. 473,
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 190, 193, 200 to 204 and Ss. 467 to 473 and Chs. XIV, XVI and XXXVI - Cognizance - Meaning of - Cognizance is
an act of the court - Cognizance is taken when a Magistrate or court applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an
offence with a view to initiating criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed - This
is the special connotation acquired by the term cognizance, and is given the same meaning wherever it appears in Ch.
XXXVI as well - Cognizance is entirely an act of the Magistrate/court - Taking cognizance may be delayed because of
several reasons whether systemic reasons or due to the Magistrate's or Judge's personal reasons,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI - Word cognizance in, not defined in CrPC - Interpretation of - Purposive construction, applied - If a case of
casus omissus - Held, the court is not trying to fill up by judicial interpretative process any lacuna to encroach upon the
domain of the legislature in the present case since there is no such lacuna or casus omissus,
Interpretation of Statutes
Internal Aids
Section Heading/Title - Have a limited role to play in the construction of statutes - Heading of Ch. XXXVI, CrPC is not an
indicator that the date of taking cognizance is the date on which limitation period commences,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - Procedural law under, harmoniously construed - Held, although penal statutes must be
strictly construed, however, looking to the legislative intent, the provisions of Ch. XXXVI have been harmoniously
construed so as to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of the accused - Besides, Ch.
XXXVI is part of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a procedural law and it is well settled that procedural laws must
be liberally construed to serve as the handmaid of justice and not as its mistress,
Print Page
Ss. 468, 469, 470, 473 and Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - Bar of limitation under - Date relevant for computation of
period of limitation under, held, is the date when criminal complaint is filed or date of institution of prosecution/criminal
proceedings, and not the date when a court/Magistrate takes cognizance - Scheme of Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473), Law
Commission's Report and the Report of the JPC, taken into consideration - Legal maxims nullum tempus aut locus
occurrit regi; vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt and actus curiae neminem gravabit, applied - Ch. XXXVI
CrPC presents the interplay of these three legal maxims - Provisions of this Chapter, however, are not interpreted solely
on the basis of these maxims - They only serve as guiding principles - Further held, Bharat Damodar Kale, (2003) 8 SCC
559 which is followed in Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394 lays down the correct law - Krishna Pillai, 1990 Supp SCC
121, does not lay down the law correctly on this issue - Reasons for, extensively discussed - Held, there has to be some
amount of certainty or definiteness in matters of limitation relating to criminal offences - As taking cognizance is
application of mind by the Magistrate to the suspected offence, a subjective element comes in - It would be unreasonable
to take a view that delay caused by the court in taking cognizance of a case could deny justice to a diligent complainant -
Such an interpretation of S. 468 CrPC would be unsustainable and would render it unconstitutional - Furthermore, an
anomalous situation would arise if date of taking cognizance is considered to be relevant as cognizance may be taken by
Magistrate after the limitation period though the complaint is filed within time - Hence, only harmonious construction
which can be placed on Ss. 468, 469 and 470 CrPC is that Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the
complaint in respect of it is filed/prosecution/criminal proceedings instituted within prescribed limitation period -
Furthermore, complainant or prosecution are entitled to exclude such time as is legally excludable,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 473 - Delay - Use of disjunctive word or in S. 473 - Whether suggests that for the first part of the provision i.e. to find
out whether the delay has been explained or not, notice will have to be issued to the accused and for the latter part i.e. to
decide whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice, no notice will have to be issued - No opinion expressed,
Criminal Trial
What is - Reiterated, taking cognizance is application of mind by the Magistrate/court to the suspected offence -
Whether a Magistrate has taken cognizance or not will depend on facts and circumstances of each case
Interpretation of Statutes
Basic Rules
Application of doctrine of - Held, a court of law would interpret a provision which would help in sustaining the validity of
the law by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than applying a doctrine which would make the
provision unsustainable and ultra vires the Constitution,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 468 - Computation of limitation period under - Relevant date determined in Bharat Kale, (2003) 8 SCC 559, and
Japani Sahoo, (2007) 7 SCC 394, (and affirmed herein) to be the date of filing of complaint or initiation of
prosecution/criminal proceedings applying legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit: the act of court shall prejudice no
man - Validity - Held, use of legal maxims as guiding principles is perfectly justified - Legal maxims are not mandatory
rules but their importance as guiding principles can hardly be underestimated,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - History, object and purpose of, examined - Limitation for prosecution of criminal offences
in general law - Rationale behind, explained - Law Commission's Report and the Report of the Joint Parliamentary
Committee, taken into consideration - Held, Ch. XXXVI was inserted to quicken the prosecution of complaints and to rid
the criminal justice system of inconsequential cases prosecution whereof displayed extreme lethargy, inertia or indolence
- Effort was to make the criminal justice system more orderly, efficient and just by providing period of limitation for certain
offences - Ch. XXXVI strikes a balance between the interest of the complainant and the interest of the accused - Where
the legislature wanted to treat certain offences differently, it provided for limitation in the statutory provision/section
concerned itself - However, it chose to make general provisions for limitation for certain types of offences for the first time
and incorporated them in Ch. XXXVI CrPC - Ch. XXXVI is a code by itself so far as the general law of limitation in regard
to criminal offences is concerned - All provisions of this Chapter will have to be read cumulatively - Ss. 468 and 469 will
have to be read with S. 473,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 473 and Ss. 467 to 472 - Extension of period of limitation under S. 473 - Importance of, explained and stressed -
Held, Ch. XXXVI is a code by itself so far as limitation is concerned - All the provisions of this Chapter will have to be
read cumulatively - Ss. 468 and 469 will have to be read with S. 473,
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 190, 193, 200 to 204 and Ss. 467 to 473 and Chs. XIV, XVI and XXXVI - Cognizance - Meaning of - Cognizance is
an act of the court - Cognizance is taken when a Magistrate or court applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an
offence with a view to initiating criminal proceedings in respect of the offence which is said to have been committed - This
is the special connotation acquired by the term cognizance, and is given the same meaning wherever it appears in Ch.
XXXVI as well - Cognizance is entirely an act of the Magistrate/court - Taking cognizance may be delayed because of
several reasons whether systemic reasons or due to the Magistrate's or Judge's personal reasons,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI - Word cognizance in, not defined in CrPC - Interpretation of - Purposive construction, applied - If a case of
casus omissus - Held, the court is not trying to fill up by judicial interpretative process any lacuna to encroach upon the
domain of the legislature in the present case since there is no such lacuna or casus omissus,
Interpretation of Statutes
Internal Aids
Section Heading/Title - Have a limited role to play in the construction of statutes - Heading of Ch. XXXVI, CrPC is not an
indicator that the date of taking cognizance is the date on which limitation period commences,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ch. XXXVI (Ss. 467 to 473) - Procedural law under, harmoniously construed - Held, although penal statutes must be
strictly construed, however, looking to the legislative intent, the provisions of Ch. XXXVI have been harmoniously
construed so as to strike a balance between the right of the complainant and the right of the accused - Besides, Ch.
XXXVI is part of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a procedural law and it is well settled that procedural laws must
be liberally construed to serve as the handmaid of justice and not as its mistress,
No comments:
Post a Comment