https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272811 In a complaint for defamation, limitation had to be examined before cognizance was taken, because the alleged defamatory publication was treated as occurring when the FIR was lodged and the complaint was filed much later. The Magistrate did not consider limitation at the pre-cognizance stage, and there was no formal request for condonation or material showing that the delay was explained or that extension under the interests of justice was warranted. On that basis, cognizance was without jurisdiction, and the subsequent summoning and framing of charge were quashed as time-barred. en-us Mon, 04 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2018 17:00:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272811 In a complaint for defamation, limitation had to be examined before cognizance was taken, because the alleged defamatory publication was treated as occurring when the FIR was lodged and the complaint was filed much later. The Magistrate did not consider limitation at the pre-cognizance stage, and there was no formal request for condonation or material showing that the delay was explained or that extension under the interests of justice was warranted. On that basis, cognizance was without jurisdiction, and the subsequent summoning and framing of charge were quashed as time-barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jan 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272811