Limitation for cognizance under CrPC: invalid condonation where the stay had been effectively vacated and delay remained unexplained.

Cognizance of the criminal offences was held to be barred by limitation because it was taken after the expiry of the period under Section 468(2) CrPC. The earlier stay order did not continue unchanged until 5.10.1999, as a later order modified the position and effectively vacated the stay; the proceedings before the Magistrate could not therefore be treated as stayed for that entire period. On that erroneous footing, condonation under Section 473 was unsustainable because no independent reason had been recorded to justify extension of time. The refusal to exercise inherent jurisdiction was held unsustainable, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance of the offences was barred by limitation under Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the delay could be condoned under Section 473 of the Code on the footing that the proceedings had remained stayed till 5.10.1999.

Analysis: Cognizance was taken long after the expiry of the limitation period. The order of 11.11.1994 had specifically stayed further proceedings, but the subsequent order of 6.2.1995 modified that position and in effect vacated the earlier stay. In that situation, it was not correct to treat the proceedings before the Magistrate as stayed until 5.10.1999. No other reason was recorded for condoning the delay, and the discretion under Section 473 could not be sustained on an erroneous premise. The refusal to interfere in inherent jurisdiction was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The taking of cognizance was barred by limitation, the condonation of delay was invalid, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---