SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(SC) 588

K.RAMASWAMY, P.B.SAWANT, RANGANATH MISRA
KRISHNA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
T. A. RAJENDRAN – Respondent


( 1 ) ). Special leave granted.

( 2 ) ). Heard learned counsel for the parties S. 9 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 provides :"no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act after the expiry of one year from the date of which the offence is alleged to have been committed. "the appellant who is one of the accused persons in the case before the learned Magistrate who has taken cognizance of the offence challenged the continuance of the prosecution by filing an application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High court contending, inter alia, that cognizance was barred under S. 9 of the Act. That having not been entertained this court has been moved in appeal by special leave.

( 3 ) ). It is not disputed that cognizance has been taken by the court more than a year after the offence was committed. Counsel for the respondents has stated that since the complaint had been filed within a year from the commission of the offence it must be taken that the court has taken cognizance on the date when the complaint was filed. In that view of the matter there would be no limitation.

( 4 ) ). Taking cognizance has assumed a special meaning in our crimi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top