Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

ss. 468 and 469 r/w s. 473 - Bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - Commencement of period of limitation and extension thereof - Held: For the purpose of computing the period of limitation u/s 468, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance - In view of s. 469, period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence either from the date of offence or from the date when the offence is detected - If the complaint is filed after the period of limitation, complainant can make an application for con-donation of delay u/s 473 - Court will have to issue notice to accused and after hearing the· accused, and the complainant, decide whether to condone the delay or not - If the complaint is filed within the period of limitation and court takes cognizance after the period of limitation then complainant cannot be expected to make an application for con-donation of such delay - s.473 postulates con-donation of delay caused by the complainant in filing the complaint - It is the date of filing of the complaint which is material - ss. 468 and 469 will have to be read with s. 473 - Interpretation of statutes - Legislative intent - Limitation.

Chapter XXXVI - s.468 r/w ss. 469 and 473 - Bar to take cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - Taking of 'cognizance' - Connotation of - Held: 'Cognizance' is entirely an act of the court - Magistrate takes cognizance when he applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of offence which is said to have been committed - This is the special connotation acquired by the term 'cognizance' and it has to be given the same meaning wherever it appears in Chapter XXXVI - The only harmonious construction which can be placed on ss. 468, 469 and 470 is that Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the complaint in respect of it is filed within the prescribed limitation period - He would, however, be entitled to exclude such time as is legally excusable - Besides, Cr.P.C. is a procedural law to be construed liberally to serve justice - There is no scope for application of doctrine of casus omissus - Interpretation of statutes - Harmonious construction - Liberal construction - Doctrine of casus omissus.

Interpretation of Statutes:

Purposive construction - Held: There is no ambiguity in the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. - But, the word 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. The rule of purposive construction can be applied in such a situation - A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose or by applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with legislative purpose - If in a case literal interpretation appears to be in any way in conflict with the legislative intent or is leading to absurdity, purposive interpretation will ..have to be adopted - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXXVI.

Doctrine of reasonable construction - Court would interpret a provision which would help sustaining the validity of Jaw by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction rather than applying a doctrine which would make the provision unsustainable and ultra vires the Constitution.

Heading of Chapter - Held: 'Heading' or 'title' prefixed to sections or group of sections have a limited role to play in construction of statutes - They may be taken as very broad and general indicators or the nature of the subject matter dealt with thereunder but they do not control the meaning of sections if the meaning is otherwise ascertainable by reading the section in proper perspective along with other provisions.

Maxims:

Relevance of legal maxims in interpreting a provision - Held: Though legal maxims are not mandatory rules, but they serve as guiding principles - Maxims - (i) 'nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi', (ii) 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt', (iii) 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' - Applicability of.

There being conflict in the views taken in two-Judge Bench decisions in Bharat Kale and Japani Sahoo on the one hand, and a three-Judge Bench decision in Krishna Pillai, on the other, on the question whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation u/s 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the relevant date would be the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution or whether the relevant date would be the date on which the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, the mater was ultimately referred to the Constitution Bench.