S.473 CrPC | Extension Of Limitation Must Be Upon Satisfactory Explanation Of Delay, Not Merely 'In Interest Of Justice': Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that a court cannot extend period of limitation for prosecution of cases merely by stating that it is necessary in the interests of justice. Instead, the court has to be satisfied that delay has been properly explained before allowing an application for extending limitation period under Section 473 of the CrPC.
Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that a Court may take cognizane of an offence after the period of limitation has expired if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed: “Before allowing an application filed under Section 473 of Cr.P.C, the court must be satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained. The delay should not be condoned as a matter of routine without sufficient reasons. The court, while condoning delay, has to record the reasons for its satisfaction, and the same must reflect in the order. The extension of the period of limitation merely on the grounds that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice and not on the ground of explained delay is improper.”
The petitioner is alleged to have wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and caused bodily injury to him. The offences alleged are those under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC, the punishments for which are one year, and one month respectively, along with Section 34. The alleged crime in which the petitioner is the 5th accused took place in January 2013. However, the final report was filed only in November 2016, with a delay of close to 4 years.
The prosecution filed an application for condonation of delay and the petitioner opposed the same. The delay was condoned by the Grama Nyayalaya vide Annexure A3 order, which is challenged before the High Court in the present case.
The Court noted that as per Section 468 CrPC, the period of limitation is one year for the category of offences punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year. It also looked into the explanation for delay given by the prosecution, which was that the investigating officer could not procure the presence of the de facto complainant for recording statement.
After reading the impugned order, the Court felt that the trial court did not consider whether the reason explaining the delay was true or reasonable and that it had condoned the delay “in the interests of justice”.
The Court opined that the trial court's action was incorrect and set aside the order. It directed the trial court to reconsider the delay condonation application afresh and pass a reasoned order. It, thus, disposed of the plea.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 6827 of 2019
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
Counsel for the petitioner: Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Vinod S. Pillai
Counsel for the respondents: Maya M.N. – Public Prosecutor