https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169733 For limitation under Section 468 CrPC, cognizance depends on the offence charged at the stage of cognizance, and where offences are triable together the period is governed by the graver offence. Because the respondents were charged with offences punishable beyond the three-year threshold, no limitation bar applied to cognizance, even though they were ultimately convicted of lesser offences. Section 473 had no role because it operates only where a limitation period exists under Section 468. The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court erred in treating cognizance as barred and set aside the acquittal based on limitation. en-us Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2015 11:00:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169733 For limitation under Section 468 CrPC, cognizance depends on the offence charged at the stage of cognizance, and where offences are triable together the period is governed by the graver offence. Because the respondents were charged with offences punishable beyond the three-year threshold, no limitation bar applied to cognizance, even though they were ultimately convicted of lesser offences. Section 473 had no role because it operates only where a limitation period exists under Section 468. The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court erred in treating cognizance as barred and set aside the acquittal based on limitation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169733