https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176670 The court held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with legislative intent and ensures that a diligent complainant is not prejudiced by court delays. The legal principles in Bharat Kale and Japani Sahoo were deemed correct, with the Krishna Pillai case to be limited to its own facts. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Sep 2022 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176670 The court held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The court emphasized that this interpretation aligns with legislative intent and ensures that a diligent complainant is not prejudiced by court delays. The legal principles in Bharat Kale and Japani Sahoo were deemed correct, with the Krishna Pillai case to be limited to its own facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176670