https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305665 The Court held that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the alleged offence after the limitation period had lapsed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision. It clarified that the trial Court must assess the applicability of Section 468 before registering a case, allow the complainant to justify any delay under Section 473, and ensure accused persons are heard before condoning delay. The Court criticized the trial Court's failure to follow proper procedures and outlined a detailed process for trial Courts to adhere to in cases governed by Section 468 to uphold procedural fairness and justice. en-us Tue, 22 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2022 12:21:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305665 The Court held that the trial Court lacked jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the alleged offence after the limitation period had lapsed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the provision. It clarified that the trial Court must assess the applicability of Section 468 before registering a case, allow the complainant to justify any delay under Section 473, and ensure accused persons are heard before condoning delay. The Court criticized the trial Court's failure to follow proper procedures and outlined a detailed process for trial Courts to adhere to in cases governed by Section 468 to uphold procedural fairness and justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Jul 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305665