Limitation Period in Criminal Cases: Date of Complaint or Prosecution Institution is Key

Mrs. Sarah Mathew Versus The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors

Mrs. Sarah Mathew Versus The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors - 2014 AIR 448, 2013 (12) SCR 674, 2014 (2) SCC ... Issues Involved:
1. Relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Correctness of the legal principles laid down in Krishna Pillai, Bharat Kale, and Japani Sahoo.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue A: Relevant Date for Computing the Period of Limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
The court was tasked with determining whether the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the complaint, the date of institution of prosecution, or the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.

The court held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. This conclusion was drawn to avoid an absurd situation where a diligent complainant is prejudiced by delays caused by the court in taking cognizance. The court emphasized that the act of taking cognizance is entirely within the control of the Magistrate and not the complainant. Therefore, the complainant should not suffer due to the court's delay.

Issue B: Correctness of Legal Principles in Krishna Pillai, Bharat Kale, and Japani Sahoo
The court had to decide which of the cases, Krishna Pillai or Bharat Kale (followed in Japani Sahoo), laid down the correct law regarding the computation of the period of limitation.

Krishna Pillai Case:
- The court in Krishna Pillai dealt with Section 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929, which specified that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act after the expiry of one year from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
- The court held that the relevant date for considering the period of limitation was the date of taking cognizance and not the date of filing the complaint.
- This decision was criticized for not considering Sections 468 and 473 of the Cr.P.C. and for relying on the meaning of 'taking cognizance' without reference to the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C.

Bharat Kale Case:
- In Bharat Kale, the court held that the limitation prescribed is for filing the complaint or initiating prosecution within the period of limitation, not for taking cognizance by the Magistrate.
- The court emphasized that taking cognizance is an act of the court over which the complainant has no control. Hence, a complaint filed within the period of limitation cannot be rendered infructuous due to the court's delay in taking cognizance.
- This decision was supported by the maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (the act of the court shall prejudice no man) and was considered to lay down the correct law.

Japani Sahoo Case:
- Japani Sahoo followed the principles laid down in Bharat Kale, emphasizing that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation is the date of filing the complaint or initiating prosecution.
- The court in Japani Sahoo also referred to the maxim 'nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi' (a crime never dies) and held that the period of limitation should be computed from the date of filing the complaint.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that Bharat Kale and Japani Sahoo lay down the correct law, and Krishna Pillai should be restricted to its own facts. The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and avoids absurdity, ensuring that a diligent complainant is not prejudiced by the court's delay in taking cognizance.