 Relevance of limitations in the criminal justice system is always a subject which has a fascinated not only the lawyers, students, but as well as judges. Because a lot of us keep on discussing and reading the Limitation Act as to whether the Limitation Act is applying only Simpliciter to the criminal proceedings or other criminal proceedings. There are special provisions under the criminal justice system. These all aspects to us will be shared through PPT and otherwise by Mr. M. Karunaneti Advocate, Member Law Commission of India, who is also a Special Prosecutor for CPI, cases in High Court as well as Prisoner of India. The previous session done by him is already going so well on the YouTube and you can all check it out regarding the relevance of pleadings in the criminal justice system. Like on the previous session, we had devised that Mr. Karunaneti has created his niche in the criminal area. Therefore, he has been made a part of the Law Commission to look into the aspects which can further help us in the betterment and development of the criminal system as well as other marches of law as well as aspects of law. I request Mr. Karunaneti to take over. Thank you for sharing your knowledge to us. Good evening, Leonard brothers and sisters for all connected here. I am starting this session with a great respect and thanks to the Beyond Law series, Leonard friend Mr. Vikas and his team for having given me this nice opportunity to meet the lawyers across the country. No doubt pleadings in criminal prosecutions as I have already taken a lecture on the subject. Pleadings is very much known to everyone in a civil law but it is not available in criminal law though not directly. But pleadings in criminal case is very much necessary. Like the same, the limitation act 1963, there is a law specially modified in the name of the limitation act 1963. But there is no special provisions, specific law, specially enactment governing the limitation in the criminal prosecution. But anyhow, but there is a provision in chapter 36 of code of criminal procedure section 467 to 473 of code of criminal procedure 1973. My contention is the word limitation is coined in section 467 to 473 in chapter 36 of CRPC. My Leonard brothers and sisters are well known about the chapter 36. The way I have taken this topic or why the Leonard friend has given me this topic is whether section 467 to 473 alone prescribes limitation or is there any other provisions in code of criminal procedure speaking, literally limitation in any way. On that search and research, I find out there are many provisions speaking, limitations though not directly. Let me take from first information to the final report even after the conviction or acutal rendered by the trial court. It is not in dispute. It is not in dispute. The investigation commences as soon as first information report has been registered. As per section 2 H of CRPC, investigation means collection of all evidence. The collection of evidence will come into play only after the registration of FIR. No doubt anyone can set the criminal law in motion. There can be no dispute over that. There cannot be any second opinion over. But whether this is an absolute rule or is there any limitation or restriction for the general term, anyone can set the criminal law in motion. The very registration of FIR, there is a restriction. The investigation, there is a restriction. Taking an accused into custody, there is a restriction. And grant of bail, there is a restriction. In the trial, there is a restriction. After conviction, suspension of sentence, there is a restriction. In order to have a better appreciation, better understanding, I want to compare the limitation at 1963 with the criminal law. The limitation at 1963 has been repealed and reenacted as per the third report of the Law Commission of India. The Indian Limitation Act 1908 was modified and reenacted as the limitation at 1963. What the civil law, what the limitation at 1963 says, it bars the original jurisdiction. Suppose we take it granted, case of money suit, suit on promissory note. Whatever may be the amount covered under the promissory note, within the time prescribed under law, that is within three years, the suit necessarily has to be filed. So the cognitions has to be taken within three years. So even one day delay cannot be condoned. So as per section 3 of the limitation at 1963, let me read section 3 of limitation at 1963. Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted, every suit please underline, every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the prescribed period, shall be dispatched although limitation has not been set up as a defence. So the original jurisdiction, the extension of time section 5 of limitation act will not come into play. Section 5 of limitation act will come into play. Let us compare original jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction or that. Whether in the criminal prosecutions, in the criminal justice delivery system, whether the original jurisdiction, is there any limitation? Or if we say yes, there are limitations, whether as per section 3 of limitation act, whether criminal prosecutions are absolutive or is there any provision like section 5 of limitation act? Let me take section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The limitation, as per the constitutional bench of the Ghandhavan Supreme Court of India, we have to read the provisions with the heading. It must be conjointly read. A limitation for taking cognizance of certain offenses. So chapter 36 heading, very clearly conveying a meaning, limitation for taking cognizance. So no doubt there is a limitation for what? Limitation for taking cognizance of what? Of certain offenses. So in criminal prosecution, in criminal justice delivery system, taking cognizance has been limited by section 467 and 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. My doubt is whether section 467 and 468 of CRPC is applicable to all the offenses. No, there are categories under section 468 CRPC. The period of limitation shall be six months. The period of limitation shall be six months if the offenses is punishable with fine only. One year if the offense is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Three years if the offenses is punishable with imprisonment for a term one year but not exceeding three years. So if the offenses are punishable more than three years, if an offense is punishable more than three years, then section 468 of CRPC will come into play. The next question my learner brother may post, whether section 468 CRPC is absolute or if there are any provisions to extend the limitations contained in 468 CRPC. Before that I want to say one more thing. Section 467 and 468 speaks about taking cognizance. What has been limited is the taking cognizance of offenses. No doubt, learner judicial magistrate and learner judge has taken cognizance not against the offender but cognizance has been taken of offenses. But what action of the learner magistrate would amounts to taking cognizance has not been defined in the code of criminal procedure. Section 190, section 190 of CRPC speaks about modes of taking cognizance of offenses. But what action of the learner magistrate or what action of the learner judge would amounts to taking cognizance has not been defined. At this juncture I want to explain, I want to speak one more thing. When an accused is produced before the learner magistrate, when an accused is produced after arrest before the learner judicial magistrate with a request to take him into custody. No doubt the learner judge, learner judicial magistrate can take the accused into judicial custody on application of judicial mind. Suppose an FIR has been drafted under section 153 under 295 A of Indian Penal Code. Now the accused has been produced before the learner magistrate. As I said earlier, as soon as the learner judge is applying his judicial mind into the facts of the case, the learner judge is deemed to have taken cognizance. Now the judge remanded the accused into custody. That is, he has authorized the detention of the accused into judicial custody. In order to take cognizance for an offense under section 295 A or under section 153 A of Indian Penal Code, the cognizance can be taken only on a sanction to prosecute. No court shall take cognizance except on a sanction. Now my question is whether the cognizance taken, cognizance taken, that is the taking of accused into judicial custody, remanding the accused into custody is legally valid or not because at the time of remand, request for remand, except the first information report and the statement of accused, no more documents are available in clear, the sanction is not placed before the court. On the date of occurrence, accused was accused, produced before the learner magistrate for the purpose of taking him into judicial custody. Whether the action of the learner magistrate taking him into a judicial custody is legally valid or not. This question has been answered by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. The no doubt taking an accused into custody is amounts to taking cognizance but for the very limited purpose, for the very limited purpose, the what has been barred by law, what has been barred by law is under section 195 of CRPCs, the bar is to take cognizance for the purpose of trial, for the purpose of trial. So the case from High Court of Karnataka was attested by the Honorable Supreme Court and the fake end of my lecture, I will give all the decisions. So no doubt, what has been barred under section 468 CRPC is taking cognizance of offenses. The taking cognizance of offenses, there is a provision namely section 473 extension of period of limitation in certain cases. I want to compare section 473 of CRPC with section 5 of the limitation at 1963. Let me read section 5, extension of prescribed period in certain cases, any appeal underline the word any appeal or any application other than an application under any of the provisions of order 21 of the CPC may be admitted after the prescribed period. So as per section 5 of the limitation at the original suit, we cannot apply section 5 to the original suit that is only in appeal or any application other than section order 21 of the CPC, section 5 is applicable. The exact judgment on the point is AIR 2000 Delhi, 336 division bench, ASOC K-Corona versus steel manfares, AIR 2000 Delhi, page number 336 ASOC K-Corona versus steel man industries. So now let us compare this section 5 with section 473 of CRPC. Let me read section 473. Leonard Brothers and sisters, please kindly pardon me, I am reading every provision because of necessity. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, they mean section 468. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter, any court may take cognizance of an offense, may take cognizance of an offense after the period of, after the expiry of the period of limitation. If it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, there are two limbs in section 473. According to the first to leave, the lawmaker has clearly stated, clearly find the word on the facts and circumstances of the case if the delay has been properly explained. We know that to explain how the delay can be explained only by way of an application before the court. The delay can be satisfactorily explained before the court for the purpose of extension of the period of limitation that is to condone the limitation, to condone the delay. The limb 2 is very very interesting. The limb 2 is that it is necessary so to do explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice. According to the Honourable Supreme Court of India and as decided by the Mother I Bench of Madras High Court by His Lordship Justice P. N. Pradhas in a case relating to accidental death 304A of Indian penal court by relying the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court the Madras High Court has held. It is for the court to decide whether the condemnation of delay is necessary or not. According to the Honourable Supreme Court and the Pasupathi case decided by the Madras High Court, even without an application by the investigating officer. As per the second blimp of 473, section 5 of limitation says it can be condoned but there must be an application, there must be a sufficient cost to be shown. In 473 also no doubt if the investigating officer files an application showing the sufficient cost for not filing the final report on time. No doubt it can be condoned but the duty is on the court as per the second blimp of 473. According to the 473 second blimp it is for the court to make cognizance. Section 190 CRPC speaks about to take cognizance, taking cognizance of offenses. 473 CRPC second blimp says the Leonard judge has to make cognizance that is on going through the entire materials available on record. If the Leonard judge feels the condonation of delay is necessary, the delay is necessarily to be condoned. Then even without the application it is for the judge to condone the delay without an application. Okay sir, then what is the time from what date the period of limitation will begin or commencement of the period of limitation? Only after knowing the commencement of the period we can file 473 of application for 473. It has been clearly mentioned in section 469, no doubt only 7 provisions under chapter 36. But from the very registration of the FPR even after the conviction recorded there are restrictions in many ways given by the law makers. Let me read 469, commencement of the period of limitation. The period of limitation in relation to an offense shall commence on the date of the offense or where the commission of the offense was not known to the person, aggrieved by the offense that is the victim or to any police officer the first day on which such offense comes to the knowledge. Then the first information has been given to the police officer it will be the then I will be having knowledge of the offense. In computing the set period the day from which such a period is to be computed shall be excluded. No doubt in order to take cognitions in order to take cognitions there is a limitation prescribed under chapter 36. It is not for all the offenses the heading itself is very clear limitation for taking cognitions for certain offenses only. And that limitation is also not absolute that can be extended that extension can be given in two ways. In chapter 473 there are two limbs and the chapter 36 speaks another thing that is continuing offense. What is continuing offense for example the offense under section 498 of Indian penal code and two provisions under the company side. There are two decisions I will I will prepared slide and I will upload it and I will also ask my friends to give the citation at the second. So in so far as 498 is harassment every day comes harassment sir. So we cannot say the first day is the day to be computed. So it is a continuing offense offense is continuously committed by the in-laws. So section 468 bar is not applicable to the continuing offense. Then I will come to section 154 of 154 of CRPC. Then my learner friends may put a question sir the last day for taking cognitions calls on Sunday. What is your remedy available? Can it can can a complaint under 200 CRPC or final report under 1732 CRPC can be filed whether cognitions can be taken on next day. Is there any provisions? Yes sir section 10 of the general classes act 1897 will come into play. Section 10 in the general classes act 1897 will come into play. The next day if complaint or final report is filed then it will be the last day cognitions can be taken sir. Then first information report anyone can set the criminal law in motion. Anyone can set the criminal law in motion no doubt at all. Whether this has been restricted yes this has been restricted this has been restricted. No doubt cases there are two types of criminal cases everyone knows. Cases instituted on a police report and the cases instituted otherwise than on police report. The restrictions given in various provisions are let me point out 196 subclass 1 CRPC, 196 1A CRPC, 196 2 CRPC, 198 and 199 of CRPC. Police cannot register FIR for the offense intersection 138A of NIR. Police cannot register FIR for the offense intersection 500 IPs. Police cannot register FIR for the offense intersection 494 IPs. bodies cannot register FIR for the offense under section 188 of 172 to 188 IPs. Let me take to section 195 of code of criminal procedure 1973. We used to call the complaint filed under section 200 CRPC as a private complaint. As usual I have one more doubt. We used to call the complaint under 200 CRPC as a private complaint. If there is a private complaint then my brothers or any public may put a question, sir is there any public complaint? Once we classify a complaint under 200 CRPC as a private complaint then there must be public complaint. No doubt there is a distinction. The complaint to magistrate, there are two types. One is complaint by private individual. For example, check bones case under section 138 of NIR. Complaint by private individual. Complaint by private individual and complaint by public servants. Complaint by public servants. In section 195, 196A and 197, 198, 199, the clear language has been used. No court shall take cognizance. No court shall take cognizance. Let me read section 185 CRPC. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants etc. No court shall take cognizance. No court shall take cognizance of any offense punishable under sections 172 to 188 both inclusive of the Indian Pillar Code of any abutment of any criminal conspiracy except on the complaint. Except on the complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the court as that court may authorize in writing in this regard. So at this juncture I want to say regarding the false complaint, false evidence and forgery documents filed into the court. No doubt anyone can lodge the complaint. The law question need to lodge a complaint. Anyone, it is not necessary that an eyewitness alone can lodge a complaint. Anyone can lodge a complaint. Even on telephonic information FIR can be drawn. FIR can be drawn up and investigation can be taken up. No doubt it. Now the question is, yet tenancy deed was forged outside the court. Yet deed was forged outside the court. And the document has been pressed into service before the court of law for the purpose of getting an order of injunction. For the purpose of getting an order of injunction. Now I am classifying into two. One is false document, forged document prepared outside the court. And another thing is false evidence. False evidence and false pleadings. Affidavit contains false falsity. And the pleadings are false in support of a forged document. Whether the plaintiff can file complaint before the police. Whether the court has to file complaint. The fine distinction has been given by the constitutional bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, constitutional bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The case was from the Madrasa Court. The judgement rendered by the Honourable Madrasa Court in the Igbol Singh case was confirmed. And fine distinction has been given by the Honourable constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India. If a document is forged, if any forgery or any offense is committed over a document outside the court. And if the document is pressed into service before the court, then anyone can file a complaint before the police. No doubt the police can investigate. Police can investigate. Suppose a document is very much available with the court. A document is in custody of the court and some offense is committed over such a document. That means, offense has been committed over a document which is in custody of the court. Then no doubt the presiding officer of the court has to give a complaint under section 340 of CRP. There must be an inquiry and the complaint can be given only by the presiding officer of the court. There must be a specific finding that is in the experience interest of justice. The honoured presiding officer has to give a finding. It is in the experience, in the interest of justice. The making of complaint is just a lesson. So in such a way, the giving complaint and taking cognitions has been restricted over a forged document and false evidence. And in so far as offense under 182 to 188 Indian Pillar Court, a very famous judgment of Madrasai Court, namely Jeevanandam and others versus state. Many complaints have been caused and direction has been given. Many complaints have been caused and direction has been given by Kishlardship Justice Anand Vangadayesh. This has been reported in 2018, to law weakly criminal page 06. The guidelines was also given by the Honourable Madrasai Court. The distinction between cases instituted on police report, cases instituted otherwise than on police report, that is, what is complained defined under 2D of CRPC, what is reported as defined under 2R of code of criminal procedure has been well discussed and a landmark judgment has been given by the Honourable Madrasai Bench of Madrasai Court in Jeevanandam and others versus Inspector of Police Velayudham Kalyam police station, Kharul district and others, a batch of a Qash application was disposed of by the Honourable Madrasai Bench of Madrasai Court. And by placing reliance on the judgment of Pasupathi case, in Pasupathi's case, case of accidental death, 304A, 3 counts, the final report was filed before the Leonard judicial magistrate with a delay. So the application under 482 was moved to quasi final report, to quasi final report. The Madrasai Court was pleased to help. As per section 473 second limb, 473 second limb, the delay can be condoned by the court, no application by the investigating officer is necessary. The Leonard judge, the Honourable High Court gave a finding that in the faction circumstances of the case and the particular case, delay was condoned, Leonard magistrate was directed to take cognitions and proceed with the case on relying upon the Pasupathi's case. The Madrasai Court reported in 2019, 2019 volume 3 LLJ, 2019 volume 3 LLJ page number 21, between Sapphire, Print Lab, Knits and O1 fabric limited, Tirupur versus Deba and others. The Honourable Madrasai Court directed the DGP Tamil Nadu to give directions to the police authorities to verify whether the final report have been filed on time, final report have been filed on time. On the basis of these judgments, circular has been given by the DGP of state of Tamil Nadu. So simply because the final report has been filed bilaterally, the Leonard magistrate cannot refuse to take cognitions. It is the Leonard judicial magistrate to apply the second clip of section 473 and to take cognitions. Yes sir, now the final report, the FIR has been filed, registered on going through the amendments made in the final FIR. Some of the witnesses have been examined, statements of witnesses under section 161 class 3 of CRPC was recorded, then accused was arrested. Now the question is whether the police has got power, unlimited power to detain the arrested person in their custody. Very, very grave offense. It requires many hours, many of days, many days to investigate whether the police has got unlimited power or the accused must be produced before the court. There is no specific limitation, the word limitation is used. But section 57 CRPC, section 57 CRPC speaks, the arrested person cannot be detained more than 24 hours. The arrested person necessarily has to be placed before the judicial magistrate concerned within 24 hours. No doubt. Now the accused is before the Leonard magistrate. Whether the Leonard magistrate can take the accused into custody for more than 30 days. Is there any limitation? Sir, the law says section 167 CRPC empowers the Leonard judicial magistrate and the special judges to take an accused into custody. No doubt, the power is vested with the Leonard judges, but that power is not unlimited. The power is, power to authorize the custody is only 15 days. The initial demand is only for a term of 15 days as a whole and that custody must be a judicial custody. No doubt, the first custody, the Leonard judicial magistrate has got every right, they have got power to grant the accused to police custody. No doubt, there are powers, but initially when the accused is produced for the remand, with the request to remand, that is to say the detention of the police has been authorized by the Leonard judges. The first custody must be a judicial custody and as a whole the period must be 15 days. If there is no judicial magistrate, if there is no judicial magistrate is available, then no doubt, the executive magistrate can also exercise the same power under. Accused can be taken into judicial custody, but the period of custody is only for seven days, only for seven days. Next, FIR registered, accused was arrested as per section 57, within 24 hours he was produced. Accused was taken into judicial custody, then immediately after taking and accused into custody, question of bail will come into play. Question of bailing will come into play. Bail can be granted, no doubt. There is a restriction. The Leonard magistrate cannot keep the accused in custody, cannot keep the accused in custody if no final report has been forwarded. Section 167 to A2 CRPC restricts such power. If final report within 60 days or 90 days has not been forwarded, then accused is entitled for front of bail. Indefensible right, approved on the accused, as per the constitutional judgment in Sanjay Jathkes, and yes, quasi versus state, decided by Khandapur Supreme Court from the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. And there are numerous judgments on the bail, and after 60 or 90 days, the extension of remand is, then the remand will be illegal custody, bail can be granted. There is a restriction. No doubt, police has got power to investigate. That has been restrained. Anyone can take the criminal law in motion. That is, there is a restriction. The Leonard magistrate has got power to take an accused into custody. The power is not absolute. There is a restriction. Then we will come into play, come into whether the power under 167 to A2 that is default bail is absolute, or is there any exception? No doubt there are some exceptions. Section 43D and 2B of UAP Act 1967, section 36A4 of NDPS Act 1985, and section 2 of Gujarat Act in Gujarat. The section 167 to A2 will not play, will not come into play, and the Leonard magistrate can permit the investigating officer to investigate some more time. Next, after the remand, bail can be granted, with the condition or without the condition. No doubt the Leonard judge has got power to grant bail with the condition. What has been restricted is the condition as embodied under the charter bail alone can be imposed. Other than the condition mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure, other conditions cannot be imposed even in some cases, in some courts. The default bail has been granted with the condition to deposit cash, with the condition to deposit cash. Whether such a power is available with the courts or not, this has been decided by in many cases, in Metro Psycho, I can cite three judgments, and one from the Honorable Supreme Court, very recent judgment. Saravanan versus State, Saravanan versus State, 2021, Volume 1 SCC Criminal, page number 141. Saravanan versus State, 2021, Volume 1 SCC Criminal, page number 141. And Arun Kumar versus State, Arun Kumar versus State, this has been decided by the Honorable Madurai Bench of Metro Psycho, Criminal OP number 22400 of 2022. Criminal OP number 22400 of 2022, reported in CDJ 2023. And Rajendran alias Tyagarajan versus State, 2019, Volume 2 Law Weekly Criminal, page 629. Rajendran alias Tyagarajan versus State, 2019, Volume 2 Law Weekly Criminal, page 629. Not only in default bail, and in bail, covered under the chapter bail, chapter bail, the bonerous condition cannot be imposed. There is a restriction by the Honorable Supreme Court. There is a restriction by the in the court of criminal procedure itself. There are decided cases. Yes, sir. Once bail is granted, is there any provision to cancel the bailer? No doubt, bail once granted, that can be cancelled by the court which has granted bail. No doubt, there can be no second opinion. The court which has granted bail has got every right to cancel the bail. Sir, now the question is, A is an accused, granted bail in a bailable offense. Granted bail in a bailable offense. Whether this bail is absolute, whether this bail can be cancelled by the said principal, that is the person who has granted bail is entitled, has got right to cancel the court which has granted bail, has got right to cancel the bail. Whether the bail in a bailable offense can be cancelled, can be cancelled by the Planet Judicial Magistrate, by the Judicial Magistrate. Pillappan, Pillappan alias Ravi Kumar, Pillappan alias Ravi Kumar decided by the Honorable Madurai Benjafedra's High Court, and very recently by Orissa High Court, and very recently by the Orissa High Court, very recently by Orissa High Court. The Honorable Madurai Benjafedra's High Court has held, if an accused is an application moved by the University of Keddinga officer to cancel the bail in a bailable offense before the Planet Magistrate. No doubt there is no permission, but what can be done is action, suruti action can be taken against the surutes, there is a direction and a guidance given by the Madurai Benjafedra's High Court. And the very recently Orissa High Court reported in 2023 law, the cancellation of order was passed by the Honorable High Court Orissa. So, though there is no power, there is a power, the very same Magistrate can cancel. The B2E is very same Magistrate has got right to cancel the bail in a non-bailable offense by exercising the power under section 437 subclass 5, 437 subclass 5CRPC. He has got every right to cancel bail in bail, non-bailable offense, very great offense, very grave offense, but he cannot cancel the bail in a bailable offense. Why? For want of jurisdiction, the power can be exercised by the Lana Judicial Magistrate, only if the law gives power, if the law confers power, as like Section 151 CPC, Lana Magistrate has no inherent power. If the court his district Munshif come Judicial Magistrate, as a district Munshif by exercising power under 151 CPC, some order can be passed. But the very same judge as a Judicial Magistrate has no inherent power, inherent power. So then what can be done in such a case? Section 439 subclass 2CRPC will come into play. Section 439 subclass 2CRPC will come into play. A high court or court of session may direct that any person who has not, who has been released on bail under this chapter be arrested and committed to custody. So the bail in bailable offense, bail granted by the Magistrate, bail granted by the SSMJ, anticipatory bail and bail granted under Section 167 subclass 2CRPC, everything can be cancelled. There is a provision 439 subclass 2CRPC either by the court of session or by the Honorable High Court can cancel the bail. Sir FIR registered, arrested, detained, detention was approved, bail was granted. Then final report was filed, cognizance was taken under 190 CRPC. Thereafter he was put on trial. Charges has been framed. Charges has been framed, examination of witnesses are over. Examination of witnesses are over. Now the Leonard judge convicted the accused. Convicted the accused. In two cases, one case, sentence of three years was imposed. In another case, by the session judge, four years sentence of imprisonment was awarded and the sentence of life imprisonment, three cases for example. No doubt as per section 389 of CRPC, 389 of CRPC, the suspension of sentence can be granted. Suspension of sentence can be granted by the Leonard trial judge. Whether this power to grant suspension of sentence is absolute or is then any restriction. Up to three years of sentence of imprisonment, up to three years of sentence of imprisonment, Leonard judge can suspend the sentence and more than three years Leonard judge cannot suspend the sentence and once the order of suspension of sentence is granted. If no appeal was filed and the accused, the convict has not get the order of suspension of sentence from the appellate court. The Leonard trial judge has no right to extend it further. Once the suspension of sentence is granted, it cannot be extended. Chinvaya Sawu versus state of Orissa, regarding the cancellation of by the Leonard magistrate, 2023 life of Orissa page number 78. Pillappanalaias Ravi Kumar versus state 2018 volume 2 MLJ criminal page 502. Pillappanalaias Ravi Kumar 2018 volume 2 MLJ criminal page 502 page 502. Then if sentence of fine, if sentence of fine, if the fine has not been paid, there will be a default class. There will be a default class. The default class, default punishment is also restricted. It is also restricted by law. One fourth of the maximum sentence alone can be awarded as default punishment and one more chapter in the court of criminal procedure that is chapter 8. Section 116 of CRPC is very relevant to the topic. Let me read out section 116 subclass 6. This is the one and only provision when after the cognizance is taken after the trial is commenced. If the trial has not been completed within the period of limitation prescribed, it will terminate automatically without any further notice. Let me read section 116 subclass 6. The inquiry, the inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the rate of its commencement and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this chapter shall on the expiry of the set period stand terminated unless for the special reasons to be recorded in writing the magistrate otherwise directs. So if a proceedings is initiated under chapter 8 of CRPC, the inquiry shall be completed within a period of six months otherwise if no order is passed to continue the same for the special reason to be recorded in writing. The inquiry, the cognizance taken under chapter 8 shall terminate as soon as the six months time is completed as soon as six months time is complete. Yes, then yet another provision is section 167 subclass 5. 167 subclass 5. As per section 167 subclass 5, if investigation has not been completed in a someone's case, 167 subclass 5 is a wonderful provision. Section 167 subclass 2 is a wonderful provision in tune with, coined in tune with article 21 like the same section 167 5 of CRPC. If in any case tribal by a magistrate as a someone's case, the investigation is not completed within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation. So the power of the investigation can be stopped further investigation can be stopped by the non-administrate by invoking section 167 5 CRPC provided the case must be a someone's case. The investigation if not completed after six months from the date of arrest then the magistrate can direct the to stop the further investigation. No doubt on the materials collected on the materials collected during the six months it is for the Leonard judicial magistrate to take cognizance, to take cognizance. Then the punishment is that brought out the Leonard judges got power to award punishment, conviction and sentence. If the Leonard judge comes to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused, the Leonard judge has come to a conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of accused and he came to a conclusion to award punishment. Conviction has been recorded following the same sentence of imprisonment, sentence of fine and compensation will come into. Now there is a restriction the Leonard magistrate can award maximum sentence or minimum sentence but as per law as per law this power of awarding punishment has been restricted. There is a minimum punishment in several there is a minimum punishment under section 302 of Indian penal code. What is the minimum punishment? Once the Leonard judge comes to a conclusion that this is offense this is a culpable homicide amounting to murder then no doubt life imprisonment has to be awarded. Section 304 B of Indian penal code, 304 B Indian penal code and in many in many cases in pattern of cases there are provisions there are provisions that we read many provisions it says compulsorily minimum punishment compulsorily minimum punishment and in some cases section 166 A 302 304 B 326 A B 354 354 B 354 C 370 and 370 A 376 A 376 B C 397 and 398 of Indian penal code minimum sentences has been provided only in very few cases Leonard judge can award less than minimum sentence even for that if at all there is a provision enabling the judge for the reason to be recorded in writing unless power is conferred that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Leonard judge necessarily has to award the minimum sentence no doubt judges got power to award either of the sentence maximum sentence or minimum sentence or any sentence less than but in some cases minimum sentence has been provided so this has to be scrupulously followed section 468 10 14 and other provisions of post co-act section 45 and 3 1 of SCSD act section 4 of money laundering act section 8 81 of journal justice act and many provisions under NDPS act and section 262 and 265 of payment and the settlement system act 2007 and very recently the hunt of the supreme court has decided regarding the police case no doubt so far we have followed the police custody can be granted within first 15 days of custody so there is a restriction by section 167 of court of criminal procedure 1973 the police custody initially the first remand should be judicial custody thereafter the police custody can be granted no doubt so far we have followed it is only a first 15 days and if accuses in custody more than 15 days that is even on 60th day one day later police custody cannot be granted this view has been modified now the latest view of the hunt of the supreme court is as a whole the police custody can be granted in v sendil biology versus state by deputy director reported in 2023 for ctc page number 758 2023 volume for ctc page number 758 v sendil biology case v sendil versus deputy director and others so though chapter 36 from sections 467 to 473 only seven provisions speaks about taking cognitions limitation to take cognitions it is also not not absolute it is also not absolute taking cognitions for certain offenses alone has been there is a bar but without naming as limitation right from section 154 right from registration of FIR even after the awarding the punishment there are a number of provisions speaking in a way limitation limiting the power of the person concerned power of the investigating officer power of the Leonard judge so in many ways the lawmaker so carefully coined the restrictions throughout the part of criminal procedure 1973 I will take one minute and I want to conclude on every information the language please kindly go through section 154 on every information on every information FIR can be granted can be registered even has to be registered if provincial offense is made up but on every information a person cannot be arrested to read the section 41 154 and 41 the fine distinction is the the arrest the arrest when when investigating officer collected more materials collected more materials then only arrest can be made then only arrest can be made as per section 41 CRPC against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received on every information FIR can be registered no doubt on the very same every information that is on the very FIR itself if there is no investigation and no statement was recorded from any witnesses accused cannot be arrested in order to secure in order to arrest a person by invoking section 41 there is a restriction by section 41 BCRPC what section 41 B speaks against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or a credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offense that he has committed a cognizable offense so on every information accused cannot be arrested the personal liberty cannot be corrected to just take section 167 section 167 FIR registered on every information there is a restriction under section 41 B the investigating officer collected more materials credible information is there on credible information he was secured in order to forward and accused in order to forward and accused before the landed judge requesting to remand to requesting to remand the section 167 one speaks section so on so and there are grounds for believing there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded the only after the investigating officer coming to a conclusion that there are grounds for believing believing what that the accusation or information is well founded grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well founded the officer in charge of the police station or police officer making the investigation can transmit forthwith the accused to the judicial custody to the before the judicial magistrate and the judicial magistrate on going through the entire materials even including the first diary first diary before taking an accused to judicial custody before taking an accused to judicial custody simply because there is an FIR the learned magistrate cannot take them take an accused into custody he must go through the first diary he has to go through the entire materials and he has to come to a conclusion that there are grounds there are grounds there is a prima facie case and then only the learned magistrate can take the accused into judicial custody then only the learned judicial magistrate can authorize the detention of the police officer with this I want to conclude my sincere thanks to the the organizers of this webinar and Mr. Vikas my sincere thanks and also to the my learned brothers and sisters who have paid their time on Sunday the neighbor. Thank you G for sharing your knowledge. Meanwhile we have two questions Sachin Sharma says what is the process to take sanction for cognizance in specific section like 153a IPC for advocates? Section 153a in order to take cognizance that is when a learned magistrate is going to take cognizance on the final report on the final report if at all there is a sanction to prosecute no cognizance can be taken no doubt at all if cognizance is taken without a valid sanction then it can be caused but provided in order to take him into custody for very limited purpose as decided by the Honorable Supreme Court of India the remand can be ordered the remand can be ordered from belgur case the Honorable Supreme Court so categorically said cognizance at the time of taking a person into judicial custody it is only a limited purpose or the bar will not come into play bar created under law under section 195 CRPC will come into play only a final report only a final report is considered to proceed with the trial to proceed with the trial that is a distinction. In case of adultery is there any limitation to file a petition for divorce and maintenance? Sir pardon sir. In case of adultery is there any limitation to file a petition for divorce and maintenance? Diverse and maintenance there is no proofs or divers for criminal prosecution there is a period of limitation and it can also be extended. Rest of the messages are thank you for wonderful session this is best in the evening. Parthiv Kanan says super then Ajit says super session Naveen says that was for recognizing my concern and thank you for sharing your knowledge Mr. Karunanthithi we are obliged the way you subtly explain all these things and that's where we can understand that why you were nominated to be a part of the member of the law commission. Thank you everyone. Thank you. G1 request I have circulated some slides to you if possible you circulate it in your website. Thank you very much for having given me this nice opportunity to meet the youngsters of this warak. Jai Hind.