Extension of period of limitation in certain cases :
Section – 473. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
STATE AMENDMENTS
MAHARASHTRA
Non-applicability of Chapter XXXVI to certain offences
Chapter XXXVI of the Code is not to be applied to following offences :
| (i) | Â | any offence punishable under any of the enactments specified in the Schedule; or |
| (ii) | Â | any other offence, which under the provisions of that Code, may be tried along with such offences, and every offence referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) may be taken cognizance of by the court having jurisdiction as if the provisions of that Chapter were not enacted. Vide Maharashtra Act 25 of 1976. |
THE SCHEDULE
| (1) | Â | The Bombay Sales of Motor Spirit Taxation Act, 1958 (Bom. LXVI of 1958). |
| (2) | Â | The Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (Bom. LI of 1959). |
| (3) | Â | The Maharashtra Purchase Tax on Sugarcane Act, 1962 (Maharashtra IX of 1962). |
| (4) | Â | The Maharashtra Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1962 (Maharashtra XLI of 1962). |
| (5) | Â | The Maharashtra State Tax on Profession. Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1975 (Maharashtra XVI of 1975). |
COMMENTS
JOINT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT
Raison d’etre for new provisions – Sections 467 to 473 are new prescribing periods of limitation on a graded scale for launching a criminal prosecution in certain cases. The raison d’etre for the new provision is best summarised by the Joint Committee of Parliament as follows :
“At present, there is no period of limitation for criminal prosecution and a court cannot throw out a complaint or a police report solely on the ground of delay although inordinate delay may be a good ground for entertaining doubts about the truth of the prosecution story. Periods of limitation have been prescribed for criminal prosecution in the laws of many countries and the Committee feels that it will be desirable to prescribe such periods in the Code as recommended by the Law Commission”.
Grounds in favour of prescribing limitation – The grounds in favour of prescribing the limitation may be mentioned as follows :
| 1. | Â | As time passes the testimony of witnesses becomes weaker and weaker because of lapse of memory and evidence becomes more and more uncertain with the result that the danger of error becomes greater. |
| 2. | Â | For the purpose of peace and repose it is necessary that an offender should not be kept under continuous apprehension that he may be prosecuted at any time particularly because with the multifarious laws creating new offences many persons at some time or the other commit some crime or the other. People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences. |
| 3. | Â | The deterrent effect of punishment is impaired if prosecution is not launched and punishment is not inflicted before the offence has been wiped off the memory of the persons concerned. |
| 4. | Â | The sense of social retribution which is one of the purpose of criminal law loses its edge after the expiry of a long period. |
| 5. | Â | The periods of limitation would put pressure on the organs of criminal prosecution to make every effort to ensure the detection and punishment of the crime quickly. |
The actual periods of limitation provided for in the new clauses would, in the Committee’s opinion, be appropriate having regard to the gravity of the offences and other relevant factors.
Commencement of period – As regards the date from which the period is to be counted the Committee has fixed the date of the offence as the date of commencement of limitation. As, however, this may create practical difficulties and may also facilitate an accused person to escape punishment by simply absconding himself for the prescribed period, the Committee has also provided that when the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any police officer, the period of limitation would commence from the day on which the participation of the offender in the offence first comes to the knowledge of a person aggrieved by the offence or of any police officer, whichever is earlier. Further, when it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the police officer making investigation into the offence is the commencement date.
Provision for extension of time – The Committee has considered it necessary to make a specific provision for extension of time whenever the court is satisfied on the materials that the delay has been properly explained or that the accused had absconded. This provision would be particularly useful because limitation for criminal prosecution is being prescribed for the first time in the country.
Amendment Act, 1978
Computation of limitation period – In the new Code, there is no provision for computing the period of limitation in relation to offences which can be tried together. Section 468 has been amended by the Amendment Act, 1978 to provide that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, the offence for which the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment can be imposed shall be taken into account.