Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the complaint could be condoned under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the orders condoning the delay and upholding the complaint were liable to be set aside.
Analysis: Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables a court to take cognizance after expiry of limitation if the delay has been properly explained or if it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. The Court held that the provision is disjunctive and that the word "or" cannot be read as "and". The explanation offered by the prosecuting agency was found acceptable because the complaint was filed after obtaining legal opinion on whether the corporate entity could be arrayed as an accused, and this was treated as a bona fide step showing due diligence rather than negligence or inaction. The reliance on the principle of speedy trial did not assist the petitioner, because the facts justified the extension of limitation.
Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned, and the challenge to the complaint failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, delay may be condoned if either the delay is properly explained or the interests of justice so require, and the two requirements are not cumulative.