https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284545 Cognizance of the criminal offences was held to be barred by limitation because it was taken after the expiry of the period under Section 468(2) CrPC. The earlier stay order did not continue unchanged until 5.10.1999, as a later order modified the position and effectively vacated the stay; the proceedings before the Magistrate could not therefore be treated as stayed for that entire period. On that erroneous footing, condonation under Section 473 was unsustainable because no independent reason had been recorded to justify extension of time. The refusal to exercise inherent jurisdiction was held unsustainable, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:59:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284545 Cognizance of the criminal offences was held to be barred by limitation because it was taken after the expiry of the period under Section 468(2) CrPC. The earlier stay order did not continue unchanged until 5.10.1999, as a later order modified the position and effectively vacated the stay; the proceedings before the Magistrate could not therefore be treated as stayed for that entire period. On that erroneous footing, condonation under Section 473 was unsustainable because no independent reason had been recorded to justify extension of time. The refusal to exercise inherent jurisdiction was held unsustainable, and the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284545