Section-514: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation – with corresponding and equivalent Sections of Cr.P.C.-Criminal Procedure Code.
Comparison
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding section) |
| 514. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation.—(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Sanhita, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. Explanation.—For the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date shall be the date of filing complaint under section 223 or the date of recording of information under section 173. | 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.—(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. |
Commentary:
Section 514 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, addresses the limitation periods for initiating legal proceedings in criminal cases. This provision ensures that offenses are prosecuted within a reasonable timeframe, thereby upholding the principles of timely justice and legal certainty.
Key Provisions of Section 514:
- Bar on Cognizance After Limitation Period:
- Courts are prohibited from taking cognizance of certain offenses after the expiration of specified limitation periods, except as otherwise provided in the Sanhita.
- Specified Limitation Periods:
- Six months: For offenses punishable with fine only.
- One year: For offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
- Three years: For offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
- Determination of Limitation for Joint Trials:
- When multiple offenses are tried together, the limitation period is determined based on the offense with the most severe punishment.
- Computation of Limitation Period:
- The period of limitation is calculated from the date of filing a complaint under Section 223 or the date of recording information under Section 173 of the BNSS.
Purpose and Rationale:
The primary objective of Section 514 is to prevent undue delays in the prosecution of offenses, ensuring that legal actions are initiated promptly. This provision promotes efficiency in the criminal justice system and protects individuals from facing charges for actions committed in the distant past, where evidence may no longer be reliable.
Comparison with Previous Legislation:
Section 514 of the BNSS corresponds to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. Both sections outline similar limitation periods for taking cognizance of offenses. However, the BNSS aims to modernize and streamline criminal procedures, potentially incorporating provisions to address contemporary challenges, such as digital offenses and the use of electronic evidence.
Implications:
By enforcing limitation periods, Section 514 encourages timely prosecution and helps maintain the integrity of the judicial process. It balances the interests of the state in prosecuting offenses with the rights of individuals to be free from indefinite legal uncertainty.
Must be Read With
Section 514 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, should be read alongside the following sections to gain a comprehensive understanding of its application, computation, and exceptions:
Section 513: Period of Limitation
- This section defines how the limitation period for different categories of offenses is computed.
- It lays down the basic principles for determining the start and end points of limitation, such as the date of the offense or the date when the offense comes to light.
Section 515: Extension of Period of Limitation in Certain Cases
- This section provides circumstances under which the limitation period can be extended.
- For example:
- Delayed discovery of the offense by the victim.
- Reasonable cause shown for delays in filing complaints.
Section 223: Complaints
- Section 514 explicitly refers to complaints under Section 223 as a trigger for the computation of limitation.
- This section explains how complaints are filed and outlines the requirements for their validity, forming the basis for initiating cognizance.
Section 173: Information to Police
- If the limitation period starts based on the date of information recorded by the police, this section becomes relevant.
- It deals with the process of reporting information about an offense and the subsequent actions by the police.
Section 516: Exclusion of Time in Certain Cases
- Provides for specific exclusions in computing the limitation period, such as:
- The time taken by the victim or complainant to obtain required permissions (e.g., sanctions for prosecution).
- Delays caused by procedural requirements or errors.
Section 518: Judicial Discretion in Delay
- Details the power of the judiciary to condone delays in taking cognizance of offenses.
- Courts may allow cognizance beyond the limitation period if sufficient cause is demonstrated, particularly in cases involving vulnerable victims.
Why These Sections Are Relevant
- Integrated Application: Sections 514, 513, and 515 together create a framework for applying and managing limitation periods.
- Exceptions and Discretion: Sections 515 and 518 ensure flexibility, allowing for justice in cases where delays are unavoidable or reasonable.
- Procedural Coordination: Sections 173 and 223 clarify procedural timelines that interact with limitation provisions.
Precedents
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has established significant precedents concerning the limitation periods for initiating criminal proceedings. Notable judgments include:
- Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62: Read Full text here
- Issue: Clarification on whether the limitation period under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertains to the filing of a complaint or the court’s act of taking cognizance.
- Ruling: A five judges constitutional bench of the Court held that the limitation period is satisfied if the complaint is filed within the prescribed time frame, regardless of when the court takes cognizance. This ensures that delays attributable to the court do not prejudice the complainant.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt (2000) 1 SCC 230: Read Full text here
- Issue: Applicability of Section 468 CrPC to offenses under special statutes.
- Ruling: The Supreme Court determined that the limitation provisions of the CrPC apply to offenses under special laws unless explicitly excluded. This underscores the necessity of timely prosecution across various statutes.
- Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4: Read Full text here
- Issue: Interpretation of the commencement of the limitation period under Section 469 CrPC.
- Ruling: The Court clarified that the limitation period begins on the date of the offense or when the offense comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved party or a police officer, whichever is earlier. This interpretation ensures clarity in determining the start of the limitation period.
- State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 SCC 34: Read Full text here
- Issue: Impact of delay in challan from date of knowledge and prosecution on the accused’s right to a fair trial.
- Ruling: The Supreme Court emphasized that undue delay in initiating criminal proceedings can prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. The Court advocated for prompt action to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statutes seek to subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, whether by the State or a private complainant must abide by the letter of law or take the risk of the prosecution failing on the ground of limitation.
Conclusion
Section 514 of the BNSS, 2023, plays a crucial role in ensuring that criminal proceedings are initiated within reasonable timeframes, thereby upholding the principles of justice and legal certainty. It reflects a commitment to an efficient and fair criminal justice system, aligning with modern legal standards and societal expectations.
Section 514 is the central provision on the bar to cognizance due to limitation, but its interpretation and application require reference to related sections like Sections 513, 515, and 516 for computation and extension, and Sections 223 and 173 for procedural triggers. These sections collectively ensure that limitation laws are applied in a manner consistent with justice and efficiency.
****End***