IMPORTANT POINT
Plea of bar of limitation can be raised at any stage of the proceeding. Even when it was not raised the Magistrate should have considered his power and authority in the light of sections 468 and 473 of Cr. P.C.

JUDGMENT

V.P. Mathur, J. - This revision is directed against the judgment and order passed by Mr. S.L. Tripathi, the then Sessions Judge of Deoria on 27.11.1981 in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1981. It was a case under section 323 I.P.C. Mr. R.L. Sankhwar, the then Munsif Magistrate, Kasia, district Deoria had passed an order of conviction of the revisionists and sentenced each one of them to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The number of the criminal case was 9963 of 1966. The appeal was heard by Mr. S.L. Tripathi, Sessions Judge of Deoria and the number of the criminal appeal was 153 of 1981; The learned Judge was addressed on the legal aspects of the matter also and it was brought to his notice that the case could not proceed as it was barred by limitation and hence should quash the proceedings, but the Sessions Judge was of the view that since the taking of the cognizance was not challenged at the initial stages under sec. 482 of the Cr. P C. since the Magistrate was empowered under section 472 of the Cr. P. C. to take cognizance even beyond limitation and he has taken cognizance in this case, hence this point can not be agitated at this stage. On merits, he found the Magistrate's judgment to be satisfactory and confirmed it and dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction of the revisionists but reducing the sentence of each one of them to a fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. A perusal of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will make it very clear that the object of the framers of the Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after long time and to ensure that material evidence does not disappear and the abuse of process of the Court does not take place. It may also mentioned here that proceedings which are illegal and invalid right up from inception and in the initial stages, cannot become legal and valid, because illegality has persisted and the proceedings have concluded.

3. Section-468 prescribes for a bar on prosecutions and is in the nature of express prohibition against the taking of cognizance of offences of the categories specified in the section after a prescribed period of limitation. And since it is clearly a limitation on the power of the court, it consequently means that when the Magistrate sits down to take cognizance, he must determine whether his power of taking cognizance has or has not been taken away under this section by reason of the offence being barred by limitation or by lapse of time on that date.

4. Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only provides for extension of period of limitation in cenain cases. This section invests the Court with a judicial power and a judicial discretion to take cognisance of an offence even after expiry of period of limitation; if sufficient cause bas been shown for the delay or if the interest or demands of justice make it necessary to take cognisance. Necessarily an application of this section would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and, on the basis of the same, the Court has to exercise its judicial discretion in the matter. The provision is a kin to the provisions of section 5 of Limitation Act and therefore the provision of this section should accordingly like section 5 Limitation Act, receive a liberal construction because the object is to advance substantial justice, when no negligence or inaction or want of bona-fides is imputable to the prosecutor; But this liberality can not be extended too far, merely, because the government is the prosecutor or the prosecution has been started on a Police report. Of course the power of the Court is discretionary and wider than the power under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The words "in the interest of justice" should receive liberal construction. The court must consider whether delay should be condoned and for that purpose it must see whether the delay has been properly explained or whether the exercise of discretion in favour of