469 CrPC | Limitation Commences From Date Of Knowledge Of Police Officer, Not Subsequent Date Of FIR: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the period of limitation under Section 469 CrPC begins from the date on which the police officer acquires knowledge of the commission of an offence, and not from a later date when the FIR is formally registered.

Applying this principle, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed a CBI chargesheet as being barred by limitation.

The bench was dealing with a criminal revision petition arising out of a prosecution initiated by the CBI against a public servant for allegedly running a private business. The acts were detected during a search and seizure operation conducted in 1995 however, the FIR was registered subsequently, and the chargesheet was ultimately filed in 1998, beyond the statutory limitation period applicable to the offences alleged.

The prosecution sought to justify the delay by contending that limitation should be computed from the date of registration of the FIR, and also relied on the time taken to obtain expert and forensic opinions, including CFSL reports.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court examined Sections 468 and 469 CrPC, which govern limitation for taking cognisance of offences. The Court emphasised that Section 469 clearly stipulates that where the commission of an offence is not known on the date it is committed, the period of limitation commences from the first day on which the offence comes to the knowledge of the police officer.

The Court held that once such knowledge was admittedly available to the investigating agency in 1995, the limitation clock began to run from that date. The subsequent registration of the FIR could not be used to shift or reset the commencement of limitation.

“The period of limitation is to commence from the date of knowledge of the police officer…Prima facie, the offence of doing a business was disclosed from the seizure of the documents itself. Therefore, to claim that the delay was on account of the time taken by FSL in giving this Report, is not tenable,” the Court observed.

It added that CBI's reliance on the Preliminary Enquiry in which statements of the witnesses were recorded and the offence was prima facie made out, is not tenable as the documents disclosing the alleged commission of offence relate back to 1995.

“The commencement of the period of limitation, therefore, commences from 24.11.1995 or 01.02.1996, and not from the date of registration of the present RC on 24.11.1997,” it held.

As such, the Court refused to condone the delay of 2 years on part of CBI and allowed the revision petition.

Appearance: Mrs. Anita Sahani with Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for Petitioner; Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj SPP for CBI, along with Ms. Anchal Kashyap & Ms. Ananya Shamshery, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Bachu Singh v. CBI

Case no.: CRL.REV.P.320/2004

Click here to read order