Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar heard a petition on an application of period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Madras High Court observed this in the case of A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police.

What is the Background of A.Kaliyaperumal v. The Superintendent of Police?

• An important issue had been raised in petitions, prompting a collective approach in addressing them in these criminal original petitions.
  • Following the resolution of the issue, the particulars of each case were examined by the court, and distinct rulings were made for each petition.
• In 2024, a petition was lodged, requesting the transfer of an investigation due to the police's failure to conclude the investigation and submit a final report, despite explicit directives from this Court in the past.
• During the proceedings the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, informed the court that the final report had been submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi.
• However, considering that the offence carried a two-year imprisonment term, the final report should have been filed within the timeframe specified under Section 468 of the CrPC.
• Since the report was only filed after four years, clearly surpassing the limitation period, the lower court declined to take cognizance of the matter.
• Hence, the petitioners approached the HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madras HC held that “the relevant date for reckoning the period of limitation is the date on which the final report was filed and not the date on which the First Information Report (FIR) was registered”.

How Court Described the Period Limitation under CrPC in this case?

• About:
  • Chapter XXXVI of the Code comprising Sections 467-473 of CrPC was introduced in the CrPC of 1973.
  • The period of limitation, like a relay race, has a start and a finish point.
• Section 467 of CrPC:
  • Section 467 states that the “period of limitation” is the period prescribed in Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence.
• Section 468 of CrPC:
  • Clause (2) of Section 468 CrPC prescribes a graded period of limitation shall be—
    • six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
    • one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
    • three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
• Section 469 of CrPC
  • Section 469 CrPC is crucial for reckoning the starting point of the period of limitation.
  • Section 469 (a) spells out the general rule that the limitation shall run from the date of the offence (excluding the first day under Clause (2) of Section 469).
  • Section 469 (b) and (c) are exceptions to the general rule providing for deferment of running of limitation in cases where (a) the commission of the offence is not known or (b) the offender is not known.
  • In such cases the limitation would commence as follows:

• Sections 470 to 473 of CrPC:
  • Sections 470 and 471 provide for the exclusion of time in certain cases.
  • Section 472 CrPC incorporates the well-known rule that in case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.
  • Section 473 CrPC empowers the Court to condone the delay and take cognizance beyond the period prescribed in Section 468 CrPC if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice.