Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Limitation Period for Criminal Revision - The general limitation period for filing criminal revision petitions is three years from the date of the order or judgment, as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2412"].
Section 468 Cr.P.C. - This section specifies that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences is three years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The period is 3 years under Section 468 Cr.P.C. ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"].
Applicability of Limitation - The limitation period applies to the filing of charge sheets and revision petitions. If the charge sheet is filed beyond three years, the case may be barred by limitation, as argued by petitioners ["2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2412"].
Extension of Limitation - The law generally does not provide for extension of the limitation period unless specific provisions or circumstances (such as delay caused by the court or parties) justify it. This is not a case where extension of the period of limitation can be... ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"].
Court's Discretion - Courts have held that if the limitation period expires, the case may be dismissed on the ground of time-bar, unless there are exceptional reasons to condone the delay. The Court is empowered to take cognizance of a complaint even after the prescribed period if justified ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"].
Specific Cases - Several judgments mention that criminal revisions or proceedings filed after the expiry of the limitation period are liable to be dismissed. For example, petitions filed beyond three years from the order date have been rejected as barred ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"], ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The limitation period for filing criminal revision petitions under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is three years. Cases filed beyond this period are generally barred unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. Courts have consistently upheld that the limitation period is strict, and revision petitions or charge sheets filed after expiry are often dismissed on grounds of limitation ["A Phulchand Sharma vs Ad Gopal Sharma - Manipur"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2412"]. Therefore, timely filing within three years is crucial for maintaining criminal revision proceedings.
Filing a is a crucial remedy under the , particularly Sections 397 and 401, to challenge orders of lower courts. But what is the for criminal revision? This question often arises for litigants and lawyers navigating India's complex legal landscape. Generally, there is no strict, uniform timeline prescribed under the CrPC for revisions, leading to reliance on , the , and specific statutes. This guide breaks it down, drawing from key judgments and principles—note: this is general information, not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
In many instances, no prescribed exists for filing revisions. Courts have consistently held that without explicit , revisions can be entertained even after delays, subject to explanation.
No Specific Limitation Under Key Statutes: For example, under the (though primarily civil, illustrative for revision principles), the Full Bench ruled there is no period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 20, and procedural rules cannot impose one. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1074 Similarly, in criminal contexts, the absence of a fixed period allows flexibility.
Application of : Where no specific limit is provided, Article 137 applies, prescribing three years from when the right to apply accrues. This covers any other application for which no period of limitation is provided. 1978 0 Supreme(All) 185 In one case, it was noted: period is 3 years under but clarified in revision contexts as Article 137.
and Delay Condemnation: Courts exercise discretion to if justified via . In , a revision filed over two years after disposal was admitted due to sufficient explanation. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1074 Echoing this, courts emphasize: There being no inordinate delay and the delay is not substantial in nature... Regulation 28... does not provide for filing the Revision Petition and Article 137... provides that any application for which no period of limitation is provided. 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 23
is key; one ruling states: when no period of limitation is prescribed the revision application must be filed within a ... the reasonable period of time cannot, in any event, exceed three years, which is the normal period of limitation under the No. 113. 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 836 (Note: Article 113 for civil, but analogous to 137 for applications.)
Limitation periods differ by statute, demanding careful review:
: No limitation under Section 20; legislature must introduce one. 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1074
: Strict 60 days; no equitable extension.
Captain S. Dinakar VS Parvathi Subramanian - Current Civil Cases (2009)
: No specific limit under Section 333; Article 137 (three years) applies. 1978 0 Supreme(All) 185
: Extension only for deferred proceedings due to appeals. 1995 0 Supreme(AP) 395
: No prescribed period for civil/criminal revisions; generally 60 days, like appeals. 1982 0 Supreme(Sikk) 1
In criminal matters, CrPC revisions often mirror these, with courts applying residuary provisions. For instance, in cases, revisions against discharge orders were filed without strict limitation bars, focusing on merits. 2023 Supreme(Online)(MANIPUR) 250
Recent judgments reinforce flexibility in criminal revisions:
Public Interest Over Strict Limitation: In a misappropriation case under Sections 120B/408/420/409, the court for delay, holding: public interest in the proper administration of justice must be given much importance... Strict procedure under Criminal Procedure Code for disposal of an appeal and/or revision is not contemplated... provision of Limitation Act... should not be applied Strictly. 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 23 The matter was remanded, allowing condonation.
Limit: Even without prescription, delays beyond 4.5 years were rejected as unreasonable, exceeding Article 113/137 analogies. 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 836
No Review Powers in Revisions: Distinguishing revision from review, courts clarify: The is a creature of Statute. In the absence of specific provision allowing a review under an enactment, a review petition does not lie. 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 674 In contexts (analogous), revenue officers lack inherent review under revision powers. 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 674
Exclusion of Pendency Periods: The period of pendency of this revision to be excluded for the limitation. 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1992 Useful for chained proceedings.
: can exercise revision powers beyond timelines if within reasonable bounds. 2005 0 Supreme(MP) 507
Manipur cases highlight procedural filings without rigid limits, e.g., revisions in Cril. Misc. cases post-discharge.
2023 Supreme(Online)(MANIPUR) 243
To navigate these rules effectively:
Check the Governing Statute: Always verify if a specific period (e.g., 60/90 days) applies.
Document Delays: File affidavits explaining reasons; courts favor genuine cases.
Act Promptly: Aim for within 3 years under Article 137 to avoid 'unreasonable delay' challenges.
Monitor Changes: Legislatures may introduce limits; stay updated.
The for criminal revision in India is not rigidly fixed under CrPC but hinges on statutes, Article 137 (3 years residuary), and . While many scenarios allow late filings with justification, strict timelines in specific acts demand compliance. Cases like those from Kerala, U.P., and underscore: delays are condonable if explained, but reasonableness prevails2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1074 1978 0 Supreme(All) 185 2009 0 Supreme(Gau) 23.
For litigants, timely action with strong grounds maximizes success. This overview synthesizes principles from precedents—seek professional advice tailored to your facts, as outcomes vary by jurisdiction and circumstances.
References: 2015 0 Supreme(Ker) 1074
Captain S. Dinakar VS Parvathi Subramanian - Current Civil Cases (2009)
1978 0 Supreme(All) 185 1995 0 Supreme(AP) 395 1982 0 Supreme(Sikk) 12009 0 Supreme(Gau) 23 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 836 2014 0 Supreme(Pat) 674 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1992 2005 0 Supreme(MP) 507 #CriminalRevision, #LimitationPeriodIndia, #CrPCRevision
of limitation. ... He then filed Cril. Misc. ... This is not a case where extension of the period of limitation can be Cril.Petn. ... period is 3 years under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Revision Case No. 13 of 2022 before the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West, aggrieved by the aforestated discharge order dated 15.04.2020. ... This discharge was by way of the order dated 15.04.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West, in Cril. (P) Case No. 80 of 2019. While so, the Central Bureau of Investigation filed Cril. ... Kom, learned counsel, would contend that in the light of the aforestated revision order, the Trial Court would have to undertake trial of the accused for....
(Z) Case No. 7 of 2021 and Cril. Misc. ... Act, it is provided, inter-alia, that the provisions of the Cril. ... As the present two Special Judge, Imphal West in Cril. ... (Z) Case No. 7 of 2021 and Cril. Misc.
(Z) Case No. 7 of 2020, Cril. ... Act and Section 3, 4 and Para 4-A of the Schedule to the Cril. ... Act, it is provided, inter-alia, that the provisions of the Cril. ... Act), Imphal West, Manipur in Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 7 of 2020, Cril. Misc. (Z) Case No. 1 of 2021 and Cril. Misc. ... Act and that under Section 3 and 4 of the Cril.
Cril ... By order dated 09.03.2021 passed in this revision, this Court directed the assailing the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandel, in Cril ... He would point out that the prayer in this revision with regard to directing the police not to file a Charge Sheet p style="position:absolute
Aggrieved thereby, he filed this revision. ... Magistrate, Imphal West, and filed Cril. Misc. ... Magistrate, Imphal West, in Cril. Misc. Case No. 183 of 2019. ... petition, filed under Section the date on which the cause of action arose, but the Court is empowered to take cognizance of a complaint even after the prescribed period
While disposing of the Cril. Misc. ... iv) That, the defendant will withdraw (a) Cril. (C) Case No.38 of 2014 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal West-I, (b) Cril. Misc. Case No.25 of 2016 Ref; Cril. ... Pending Criminal Complaint Case No.38 of 2014, the respondent filed Cril. Misc. ... Challenging the dismissal of the criminal appeal, the respondent has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.11 of 2018 before this Court. This Court, by the order dated 30.5....
(Cril.) ... (Cril.) ... (Cril.) ... (Cril.) ... (Cril.)
Act, it is provided, inter-alia, that the provisions of the Cril. ... The present criminal revision petition has been filed under of the Cril. ... Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner (CBI) filed the present Criminal Revision Petition In the result, the present criminal revision petition is hereby p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding:0;top:
Jonny Meetei, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the revision petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this Criminal Revision Petition with liberty to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. ... [5] Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed of. ... Jonny Meetei, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the revision petitioners and Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned DSGI, appears on behalf of the respondents. ... 1 `Suppl. 1, Item No. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR ....
However, it is always open to the auction purchaser to file a regular suit for possession based on the title. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The period of pendency of this revision to be excluded for the limitation.
In the year 1967, the aforesaid Sub-section (3) was again amended by Act I of 1967. The amended Sub-section (3) reads thus:- “[(3) Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, on application made to him within three months of any order or decision on any objection made under sub-section (1) or on his own motion, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard in the matter, revise, at any time before the final publication or the record-of-rights, any such order or decision whether made by himself or by any other Revenue Offic....
There being no inordinate delay and the delay is not substantial in nature, he submits that the impugned order dated 18.5.2006, is liable to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ziro, for fresh trial of all the accused persons. 7. Moreover, it is submitted by Mr. Taffo, learned P.P., for the State that Regulation 28 of the Regulation does not provide limitation period for filing the Revision Petition and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that any application for which no period of limitation is provi....
However, it is settled principle of aw that when no period of limitation is prescribed the revision application must filed within a reasonable time. It is true that no period of limitation as been prescribed for filing of the revision. In my view, the reasonable period of time cannot, in any event, exceed three years, which is the normal period of limitation under the residuary Article No. 113 of the Limitation Act. The revision application was filed challenging the order dated 23rd February, 1997 after a lapse of 4Y2 years, i.e., on 6th October, 2004.
The same becomes different period of limitation as contemplated under section 29 of Limitation Act as there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act for a revision to be filed under the Act of 1983. Where there is no provision in the Schedule to the Limitation Act for a particular suit, appeal or application, in a situation identical with that for which the special law provides the test of prescription of a period of limitation different from the period prescribed under the Schedule, is satisfied as laid down by the apex Court in Kaushalya....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
