Limitation bar on cognizance requires a speaking order and hearing before extension; time-barred proceedings should be discontinued, not acquitted.

Cognizance taken after the limitation period is a substantive bar unless the court expressly invokes the statutory extension on proper explanation or in the interests of justice. Where limitation is plainly in issue, the accused must be heard before the bar is lifted, and a speaking order is required; a bare order taking cognizance does not amount to deemed condonation. If proceedings are found time-barred, the proper course is to discontinue them, not to enter an acquittal, because acquittal must rest on appreciation of evidence and a finding of not guilty. The limitation objection was upheld, while the acquittal order was treated as technically improper.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance of the offences was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the accused could raise that objection after cognizance had been taken without a speaking order under Section 473. (ii) Whether, after sustaining the objection of limitation, the Magistrate could properly acquit the accused.

Issue (i): The limitation provisions in the Code create a substantive bar to cognizance after the prescribed period, subject only to extension under the statutory power to condone delay on proper explanation or in the interests of justice. Where cognizance is ex facie barred, the accused is entitled to be heard before the bar is lifted, and a speaking order is required if the court invokes the saving provision. A bare order taking cognizance without applying mind to limitation does not amount to deemed condonation.

Conclusion: The objection of limitation was rightly available to the accused and was correctly upheld.

Issue (ii): Once the proceedings were found to be barred by limitation, the proper course was to stop further proceedings and discharge the sureties. Acquittal after framing of charge was not the appropriate order because acquittal must rest on appreciation of evidence and a finding of not guilty.

Conclusion: The Magistrate was not right in passing an order of acquittal; the proper order was to discontinue the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: Although the order of acquittal was technically improper, the challenge to the finding on limitation failed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When cognizance of an offence is time-barred, the accused has a right to be heard before the bar is lifted, and the court must pass a speaking order if it relies on delay being properly explained or on the interests of justice to invoke the statutory extension of limitation.

---