Limitation under criminal procedure is tested by complaint filing date, not later cognizance date.

For the purpose of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint, not the date on which the Magistrate later takes cognizance. Chapter XXXVI bars cognizance after the prescribed period, but the complainant fulfils the statutory requirement by presenting the complaint within time. Subsequent steps such as examination of witnesses, judicial application of mind, and issuance of process remain within the Court's control and cannot defeat a complaint otherwise filed in time. Applying the principle that an act of court should prejudice no one, the complaint was held to be within limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the period of limitation is to be computed with reference to the date of filing of the complaint or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.

Analysis: Chapter XXXVI of the Code creates a bar on the Court taking cognizance of certain offences after expiry of the prescribed period, but the complainant's act is only to institute the complaint within the time allowed by law. Once the complaint is presented within limitation, subsequent steps such as examination of witnesses, application of mind, issuance of process, or taking cognizance are matters within the control of the Court and not of the complainant. A complainant cannot be prejudiced by delay or omission on the part of the Court. The doctrine that an act of court should prejudice no one supports a construction under which limitation is tested by the date of presentation of the complaint, not by the later date of cognizance.

Conclusion: The relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings, not the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate. The complaint in the present case was within limitation.

---