Natural justice requires notice before condoning delay that revives a time-barred criminal prosecution.

Where condonation of delay would revive a time-barred criminal prosecution, the proposed accused must be given notice and an opportunity of hearing before the court grants relief, because the limitation decision directly affects the continuation of proceedings and is governed by natural justice unless expressly excluded. The discussion also treats procedural steps taken to secure fair hearing and prevent abuse of process as referable to the court's inherent powers, and links the limitation stage with cognizance and issuance of process. An ex parte condonation order in that context is liable to be set aside and reconsidered after hearing the affected party.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an ex parte order condoning delay in filing a complaint and extending time for prosecution could be sustained without notice to the proposed accused; (ii) whether the question of limitation and related relief in such criminal proceedings could be dealt with only by invoking inherent powers of the criminal court.

Issue (i): Whether an ex parte order condoning delay in filing a complaint and extending time for prosecution could be sustained without notice to the proposed accused.

Analysis: The decision proceeds on the basis that where condonation of delay has the effect of reviving or permitting a time-barred criminal prosecution, the person sought to be prosecuted must be given an opportunity of hearing. The principles of natural justice require participation of the proposed accused at the stage when limitation is considered, because the order directly affects his rights and the continuation of prosecution. The ex parte extension of time and condonation, therefore, cannot stand.

Conclusion: The ex parte condonation and extension order was invalid and liable to be quashed. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of limitation and related relief in such criminal proceedings could be dealt with only by invoking inherent powers of the criminal court.

Analysis: The judgment reasons that procedural steps taken in the interests of justice, and to avoid abuse of process, are referable to the court's inherent powers. It further expresses doubt about the broad reading placed on the later Supreme Court view said to exclude inherent powers of subordinate criminal courts, and treats that view as confined to the precise situation actually decided there. The discussion also links the stage of limitation to the stage of cognizance and process, emphasising that the court must be able to secure fair hearing before proceeding further.

Conclusion: The court accepted that the procedure of hearing the proposed accused before deciding limitation was the proper course and that the matter should be reconsidered accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The impugned ex parte order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision on limitation after issuing notice and hearing the petitioners, so that the prosecution could proceed only in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where condonation of delay is a prerequisite to the continuation of a criminal prosecution, the proposed accused must be heard before the court grants such condonation, as the principles of natural justice supplement the criminal procedure unless expressly excluded.

---