https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272812 Cognizance taken after the limitation period is a substantive bar unless the court expressly invokes the statutory extension on proper explanation or in the interests of justice. Where limitation is plainly in issue, the accused must be heard before the bar is lifted, and a speaking order is required; a bare order taking cognizance does not amount to deemed condonation. If proceedings are found time-barred, the proper course is to discontinue them, not to enter an acquittal, because acquittal must rest on appreciation of evidence and a finding of not guilty. The limitation objection was upheld, while the acquittal order was treated as technically improper. en-us Fri, 25 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2018 17:04:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272812 Cognizance taken after the limitation period is a substantive bar unless the court expressly invokes the statutory extension on proper explanation or in the interests of justice. Where limitation is plainly in issue, the accused must be heard before the bar is lifted, and a speaking order is required; a bare order taking cognizance does not amount to deemed condonation. If proceedings are found time-barred, the proper course is to discontinue them, not to enter an acquittal, because acquittal must rest on appreciation of evidence and a finding of not guilty. The limitation objection was upheld, while the acquittal order was treated as technically improper. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272812