· The term 'cognizance', is not officially defined in the code of criminal procedure in India. However, in accordance with its trivial meaning of "become aware of", the term when applied to a court, it implies 'to take note of judicially'. It refers to a judge taking notice of or acknowledging an offence, without having it proved in evidence. In a broader sense, under section 190, the usage 'taking cognizance' is used to simple refer to taking note of an offence. This judicial hearing of a matter as defined in sec190, directs the magistrate to take cognizance of the offence before moving on to the trial.
· In the code of criminal procedure, taking cognizance is provided for under chapter XIV, in sections 190 to 193, and the limitations on taking cognizance are mentioned in sections 195 to 199 of the same chapter. Chapter XXXVI, sections 467 to 469 also includes the limitations.
· Limitations on taking cognizance under Cr.P.C
1. Under Section 195 of the Code-This section aims to protect the person from unnecessary harassment by retaliatory prosecution by barring courts from taking cognizance of offences under IPC sections 172 to 188. In Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana[1] it was opined that S. 195 read with S. 34 indicate that not only cognizance of an offence without the compliant in writing of the Court is barred, but also the investigation as it encroaches upon the function of the court.
2. Under Section 196 of the Code-This section forbids courts to take cognizance of offences punishable under chapter VI or under 153A, 295A, 505(1). It also disallows taking cognizance regarding matters where there is a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, as described in section 108A of the IPC. The determination of the object of conspiracy must be done after referring the section of the penal enactment pertaining to the charge as well as the charge in itself.[2]
3. Under Section 197 of the Code-This section aims at protecting a judge/magistrate/public servants not removable from office (save with a sanction from the govt) , by barring courts from taking cognizance of any offence committed during discharge of official duty. It therefore does not apply to all public servants.
4. Under Section 198 of the Code- As per this section, no court shall takecognizance of an offence punishable under chapter XX of the IPC. No person otherthan the husband of the woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any offence punishable under section 497 or 498 of the code, and in the absence of husband, some person who had case of the woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed. This is to provide an exception to the general rule that anybody having knowledge of the fact may file a complaint, by disallowing cognizance unless the complainant is the aggrieved person.
5. Under Section 198(A) of the Code- No court shall takecognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian penal Code 1860, except upon a police report. It enables divorced wives to complain about offences committed by their husbands during the subsistence of the marriage u/ S. 498 A.
6. Under Section 198(B) of the code- This section forbids courts from taking cognizance of an offence punishable under section 376B of the IPC., where the person are in marital relationship of the fact, which constitute the offence upon a complaint have been filed or made by the wife against the husband.[3]
7. Under Section 199 ofthe Code-Under this provisionof Cr.P.C, no court isentitled to take cognizance of an offence punishable under chapter XXI of the IPC. The only exception to this is if the complaint is made by an aggrieved person, or in the case that the aggrieved is below the age of 18, or restricted by sickness/infirmity, by some person with the leave of the aggrieved. A person against whom a statement which is defamative is published becomes the aggrieved person as under this Section.]
8. Under Section 468 of the Code-This section provides for a period of limitation for the offences. If the punishment involves a fine only, the period of limitation is set to 6months, the punishment is up to one year of imprisonment, the period of limitation is for one year, and if the punishment exceeds one year but is below 3 years, the period of limitation is for 3 years. There is no period of limitation for offences involving imprisonment for more than 3 years, and in the case of multiple offences, it depends on the one with the longest sentence. The limitation is applicable only for the filing of the complaint and initiation of prosecution and for taking cognizance. The court should take full cognizance of the offence (and not mere filing of the complaint/submitting a police report) within the limitation period as it is not allowed to take cognizance of offence when the complaint is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation.
9. Under Section 469 of the code-This section is regarding the computation of the period of limitation. It sets the commencement of the period of limitation to either the date of commission of the offence or to the date of filing of the complaint.
10. Under Section 470 of the code-This section is regarding the computation of the period of limitation and aims at protecting a person who genuinely attempts to get his case tried, against the bar of limitation. It is to be noted that the period of limitation is exclusive of the date of its commencement, and the date of its termination. It is also to be noted that in cases where the previous sanction of the govt. or any other authority is needed, then the entire time period including the date of application and the date of receipt shall be excluded from the period of limitation. In the case of the accused being absent from India, or territory under the central govt., the time for which he/she was abroad shall also be excluded from the period of limitation.
11. Under Section 471 of the code- This section excludes the period for which the court remains closed from the period of limitation. Closed here is applicable if the court, during any part of its normal working hours, remains closed.
12. Under Section 472 of the code- This section deals with the computation of period of limitation in case of continuing offence. Continuing offence is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from a one-time offence. In this case, a fresh period of limitation shall commence at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.
13. Under Section 473 of the code-This section offers provisions for the extension of the period of limitation. It enables courts to grant extension if it is fully satisfied with the explanation offered for the delay, or if it feels that it is imperative to take cognizance in the interest of justice.
Cases:
A) Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh[4], 2003
The petition filed by the appellants in this case challenged the cognizance of an offence taken by the Magistrate, as it was argued that it was barred by limitation under S. 469 of Cr.P.C. The High Court rejected the allegations of the appellants.
As per the undisputed facts of the case, on 5.3.1999 the offence was detected and on 3.3.2000, a complaint regarding the same was filed. This is within a period of one year, thus well within the limitation period. Further, on 25.03.2000 the Magistrate took cognizance of the case. As according to the statute, if the limitation period is calculated considering the date of taking cognizance of the matter, then it is not within the 1-year period and hence, the appellants appeal holds good. Yet, this delay in taking cognizance of the case according to S. 473 is condonable, as the delay was caused during the process of obtaining sanction from the Government. The main argument was that, the matter must be taken into cognizance before the period of limitation expires under Chapter XXXVI.
The High Court held that, on the consolidated reading of all the provisions clearly indicate that the period of limitation is prescribed for the lodging of a complaint or the initiation of the prosecution and not when the cognizance of the case is taken by the courts.
“This is clear from Section 469 of the Code found in the said Chapter which specifically says that the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence either from the date of the offence or from the date when the offence is detected. Section 471 indicates while computing the period of limitation, time taken during which the case was being diligently prosecuted in another court or in appeal or in revision against the offender should be excluded. The said Section also provides in the Explanation that in computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority should be excluded. “
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
- [1]Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana.,1974 Cri LJ 354
- [2]Batuk Lal’s commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedural,1973, 1163 (orient publishing company., 5th edn., 2014 reprinted)
- [3] Saurabh Kumar, ‘Limitation on Taking Cognizance’, International Journal of Law, 2019
- [4]Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of Andhra Pradesh., [2003] RD-SC 500
