Limitation bar on criminal prosecution can defeat conviction and sentence when proceedings are filed out of time.

A prosecution instituted beyond the limitation period under the Code of Criminal Procedure was held incompetent because both the offence date and the detection date fell outside the three-year period, and even the later date of knowledge did not bring the case within time. The Court treated the statutory bar on delayed prosecution as consistent with fairness in criminal trial under Article 21, and concluded that the conviction, sentence, and ensuing proceedings could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the conviction and sentence could therefore stand.

Analysis: The charge-sheet itself stated the date of the offence as 22 August 1972, and the audit report showing detection was dated 5 January 1973. On either date, the prosecution was beyond the three-year period prescribed by Section 468(2)(c). Even if the later date of knowledge were taken under Section 469, the prosecution remained time-barred. The statutory bar on delayed prosecutions was treated as consistent with the requirement of fairness in trial under Article 21.

Conclusion: The prosecution was barred by limitation, and the conviction, sentence, and proceedings leading to them could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: When a prosecution is instituted beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is incompetent and the resulting conviction and sentence cannot stand.

---