Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.323, 341 r/w. s.34 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – High Court quashed the FIR on the ground of limitation holding that the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is relevant and as cognizance was taken after a period of one year, the bar of limitation u/s.468 was attracted – Respondent inter alia contended that the principle laid down in Constitution Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew will not apply as it was a case where the complaint was filed before the Magistrate, whereas in the instant case, the FIR was filed and subsequently, the Magistrate took cognizance: Held: Rejected – Whether the limitation period would be reckoned from the date of filing of the complaint or from the date of taking cognizance, is no longer res integra in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew’s case – The computing point of limitation for the purpose of s.468 is held to be the date of filing complaint- the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Whether the case belongs to one instituted before the Magistrate u/s.173 or it is upon a complaint filed before the police, what matters is the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Criminal proceedings can be said to have been initiated in both categories of complaint when the complaint is filed before the Magistrate or FIR is lodged before the police, as the case may be – It remains a complaint made either to the Magistrate or to the police to become the starting point of initiation of criminal proceedings – The relevant date as held by Sarah Mathew would be the date of filing of complaint or, differently stated, the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – As Courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available – Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent – High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the ground of limitation, taking an erroneous view that the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate is relevant – As held by the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew, the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the limitation u/s.468 is the date of filing of complaint or the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Impugned order set aside – Professional Ethics. [Paras 5.2.5, 7.2, 8.1, 10, 11] Professional Ethics – Advocates – Respecting the binding precedents and conceding their applicability in a case, duty of advocates:
Held: As disclosure of honest and full facts before the Court is part of the fair conduct on the part of lawyers, respecting the binding precedence of the judgments and conceding its applicability in a case is also a duty in fairness to be discharged by the advocates in conducting their case – They are part of the system of administration of justice and are not expected to breach the rules of the game to argue against settled principles or contrary to well settled law, just for the sake of doing it – Giving up an argument where a point of law is already decided is a professional virtue – It is part of ethics in professional conduct before the Court. [Para 8] Legal maxims – Importance in the interpretational process: Held: Legal maxims which trace their origin and birth in the experience of the older times and emerge in the progress of civilization, blend reasonableness, wisdom, truthfulness and objectivity, to be much useful in developing the legal concepts out of the codified law and in interpreting the statutory provisions – They play role of enriching the interpretational contents and adding to the jurisprudential stuff. [Para 5.6]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.