TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the accused was entitled to notice in revision against dismissal of complaints before process had been issued; (ii) Whether the alleged violations of sections 159 and 220 were continuing offences so that the period of limitation under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not apply.
Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to notice in revision against dismissal of complaints before process had been issued.
Analysis: The complaints had not been taken on file and no process had been issued to the accused. In that situation, the matter remained at a pre-process stage, and the court relied on settled authority that notice to the accused was not necessary when the complainant challenged dismissal of the complaint at that stage.
Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to notice in the revision proceedings.
Issue (ii): Whether the alleged violations of sections 159 and 220 were continuing offences so that the period of limitation under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not apply.
Analysis: The court followed earlier decisions holding that defaults under sections 159 and 220 were continuing offences. On that basis, the offence did not become complete on the original date of default for limitation purposes, and the six-month bar under section 468(2)(a) was held inapplicable.
Conclusion: The violations were continuing offences and the complaints were not barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The orders dismissing the complaints were set aside, and the matters were sent back for the trial court to take the complaints on file and proceed according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory default that is treated as a continuing offence is not barred by limitation under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and notice to the accused is not required at the pre-process stage when dismissal of the complaint is challenged in revision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
