Limitation under CrPC bars cognizance unless delay is first condoned before taking up the complaint.

Section 468 CrPC bars cognizance of time-barred offences, and Section 473 permits extension only if the court first records satisfaction that the delay was properly explained or that taking cognizance serves the interests of justice. That satisfaction must exist before cognizance is taken; a later call for reply cannot cure the defect. When condonation is sought, the accused should be heard because the order affects a valuable right. Cognizance taken without prior condonation was therefore without jurisdiction and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance of the complaints could be taken after expiry of the limitation period without first condoning the delay under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a clear bar to taking cognizance of offences of the categories specified therein after the prescribed period of limitation. Section 473 of the same Code confers power to take cognizance after expiry of limitation only if, before cognizance is taken, the Court is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary in the interests of justice. The required satisfaction must precede cognizance and cannot be supplied later by calling for a reply after the case has already been taken up. The Court also held that, when an application for condonation is moved, the accused should be heard because such an order affects a valuable right.

Conclusion: Cognizance taken without prior condonation of delay was without jurisdiction, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint is prima facie barred by limitation, the Court must first decide the question of delay under Section 473 before taking cognizance; post-cognizance justification cannot cure the jurisdictional defect.

---