Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 468 – Bar to cognizance after lapse of period of limitation – Relevant date for computation of limitation period u/s. 468 – Held: Is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence – On facts, the High Court erred in assuming that the date of taking cognizance is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the complainant well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is set aside.
Precedent – Binding effect of – Held: Decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration – Binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, 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 of the offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009. Thus, the impugned order is set aside. [Paras 7, 10][726-C-E; 727-B]
1.2 The counsel for the respondents submitted that Sarah Mathew’s case requires reconsideration on the ground that some of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been considered by this Court. A decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under consideration. It remains trite that the binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not, provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. This is apart from the fact that a bare reading of the decision in Sarah Mathew’s case would make it clear that every relevant aspect concerning Chapter XXXVI CrPC has been dilated upon by the Constitution Bench in necessary details. As a necessary corollary, the submissions made with reference to other decision of this Court, which proceeded on its own facts, are of no avail to the respondents. The submissions of the respondents are rejected. [Paras 8, 9][726-E-F; 726-F-H; 727-A]
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC
62 : [2013] 12 SCR 674 – followed.
State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 SCC 34 : [1981] 3 SCR 349; Somawanti & Ors. v. The State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 151 : [1963] SCR 774 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.