Madras High Court Issues Guidelines For Extending Limitation Period In Criminal Cases

Justice RN Manjula had disposed of the petition filed by Baba after noting that the de facto complainant had filed a Criminal Revision Petition to set aside the order of cognisance by the trial court. The Criminal Revision Petition was filed by the de facto complainant to be on the safe side and enable the prosecution to file a petition under Section 473 of CrPC and further to enable the court to pass speaking orders in limitation.

The court added that Chapter XXXVI dealing with extension of limitation was added to the CrPC to prevent parties from filing vexatious and belated cases after a long time and prevent abuse of the process of the court. Thus, the prosecution agency should have taken all possible actions and the courts should have considered all aspects before deciding to condone the delay or reject the plea for an extension of limitation. In the present case, both the prosecution and the court had failed to do so.

The court thus laid down the below guidelines-

• When any magisterial action/orders were to be passed in a case involving an offence which is barred by limitation, the court should pass a speaking order about the extension of period of limitation/ condonation after giving notice of opportunity to the accused.
• The accused shall be remanded only if the court extends the limitation or condones the delay and finds that there are grounds for remanding the accused.
• If the court does not extend limitation/condone the delay, the accused was not to be remanded and should be released forthwith.
• When a charge sheet is filed in a case involving an offence which is barred by limitation, but no magisterial action/order is required, the court should pass orders either extending the limitation/condoning the delay or rejecting the same before proceeding to take cognisance of the charge sheet. Due notice of opportunity should be given to the accused.
• The order of extension/condonation of limitation is essential even in the absence of any petition filed by the prosecution under Section 473 of CrPC.
• If the court takes cognisance of an offence which is time barred without passing orders for extension/condonation, the accused shall have a right to file a petition for discharging him on the ground of limitation irrespective of the stage of proceedings.
• If an offence is not barred by limitation at the time of filing FIR but subsequently gets time-barred, the charge sheet has to be filed with an application under Section 473 for extension of limitation. The court shall consider the application after giving due notice to the accused and pass orders. If the delay is condoned by was of speaking order, charge sheet can be taken cognisance.
• If due to some extraneous reasons, the charge sheet is taken on file without an application for extension/condonation and without any order to that effect, the prosecution shall file an application at any subsequent stage for acceptable reasons. the court shall give notice to the accused and must pass orders after considering the genuineness of the reasons and other relevant factors in the interest of justice.
• If the offence is not time-barred at the time of filing FIR or Chargesheet but later due to delay of court, the court shall not insist on a petition under Section 473 but take cognisance of the chargesheet by recording reasons for its delay.

Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v. State and another

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 74