Sections 514 and 515, BNSS 2023 — the substance

Section 514(1). Except as otherwise provided, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be — (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.

Section 515. The period of limitation shall commence — (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved or to any police officer, the first day on which it comes to the knowledge of either; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved or to a police officer.

📖 Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 (five Judges)

Facts: A complaint was filed within the period of limitation, but the Magistrate took cognizance of it only after the period had expired. The Constitution Bench was required to decide whether, for the purpose of computing the period, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.

Held: The Constitution Bench held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The Court reasoned that a complainant has no control whatever over when a Magistrate applies his mind to a complaint: the file may be delayed by listing, by the absence of the presiding officer, or by the ordinary pressure of work, and to make his right depend on that would be to penalise him for the court’s delay. The Court held that the object of the provision is to prevent a person being vexed by a stale prosecution which the complainant himself did not trouble to bring in time — an object fully served by looking at the date on which he approached the court. It further held that the provision is not to be construed too rigidly, that the accused has no vested right arising from delay attributable to the court, and that section 519 in any event confers a power to extend where the delay is explained or the interests of justice require it.

Ratio: For computing limitation the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of the prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. A complainant is not to be penalised for the court’s delay.

📖 Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath, (1991) 2 SCC 141

Facts: A prosecution was launched long after the act complained of, and the question was whether the offence alleged was a continuing one, so that a fresh period of limitation began at every moment during which it continued, or one completed at a point in time.

Held: The Supreme Court explained that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from an offence which is committed once and for all: it is an offence which continues, and in respect of which the offender may be held guilty from day to day. The Court held that the essential idea is that the offence arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement, and that such failure involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion on which such disobedience or non-compliance occurs, the disobedience or non-compliance is a fresh offence. The Court contrasted this with an offence committed once and for all, where the act is complete at a moment and what persists thereafter is only its effect — and held that in the latter case no fresh period of limitation begins, however long the consequences last.

Ratio: A continuing offence arises from a failure to obey a rule or requirement, liability continuing until it is complied with, so that every occasion of non-compliance is a fresh offence. An offence committed once and for all produces only a continuing effect, and no fresh period begins.

⚠ The test, and how to apply it

Ask whether the law imposes a continuing obligation which the offender goes on breaching, or whether it forbade a single act which he did once.

The distinguishing feature is the nature of the offence itself and the language of the provision creating it — not the duration of the harm it caused.

A useful indicator: does the provision impose a penalty for every day the default continues, or speak of failure to comply as a subsisting state? That points to a continuing offence. Does it punish doing something on an occasion? That points to a completed one.

And the continuing hardship of the victim does not extend the period. A person who suffers for years from an act done once is the victim of an offence with a continuing effect, not of a continuing offence — though he may well be assisted by section 515 on knowledge, or by section 519.

The position stated shortly

1. There is no limitation at all for an offence punishable with more than three years imprisonment. The Chapter applies only to the least serious offences.

2. The periods are six months (fine only), one year (imprisonment not exceeding one year) and three years (imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three).

3. Where offences may be tried together, the period is determined by reference to the offence punishable with the more severe punishment.

4. The bar operates on the taking of cognizance, not on the investigation. An investigation may lawfully continue.

5. For computing the period, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of the prosecution — not the date the Magistrate takes cognizance: Sarah Mathew.

6. Section 515: the period runs from the date of the offence, or from the day the offence comes to knowledge, or from the day the identity of the offender becomes known.

7. Section 516 excludes the time spent prosecuting another proceeding in good faith in a court unable to entertain it, the period of a stay or injunction, the time to obtain sanction, and the offender’s absence from India or concealment.

8. Section 517: where the period expires on a day the Court is closed, cognizance may be taken on the day it reopens.

9. Section 518: for a continuing offence a fresh period begins at every moment during which it continues — the offence arising from a failure to comply with a continuing obligation: Gokak Patel.

10. Section 519: any Court may take cognizance after the period has expired where the delay is properly explained or it is necessary in the interests of justice. The bar is never absolute.