Criminal limitation and condonation of delay require notice to the accused before any extension of time is granted.

Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars cognizance after limitation, while Section 473 permits extension only on proper explanation of delay or where the interests of justice require it. Because limitation protects a valuable right of the accused, any request to condone delay or extend time must be decided only after notice to the accused and an opportunity of hearing. An order extending limitation behind the accused's back is legally unsustainable and invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in filing a complaint beyond the period of limitation could be condoned without notice to the accused and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The bar under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 restricts cognizance after expiry of limitation, while Section 473 of the Code permits extension only where the delay is properly explained or the interests of justice so require. Since the limitation bar confers a valuable right on the accused, any application for condonation of delay or extension of time must be considered after notice to the accused and after hearing them. An order extending limitation behind the back of the accused violates that right and is unsustainable.

Conclusion: The delay could not be validly condoned without notice to the petitioners and the impugned order was illegal and unsustainable.

---