Limitation cannot be extended without proof that the accused absconded or concealed himself.

The petitioner was accused of taking out a motorcycle rally and using a DJ sound system without prior permission during Assembly by-elections on 15 October 2020.

The resulting prosecution charged him under Section 188 of the IPC and Section 15 of the M.P. Kolahal Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1985.

The police submitted the charge-sheet on 27 August 2023, and the trial court took cognizance on 4 November 2023.

The revisional court upheld cognizance, reasoning that the petitioner had avoided arrest and that the relevant period could be excluded from limitation.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1. Whether cognizance of the charged offences was barred by the one-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(b) of the CrPC

2. Whether the period before the petitioner’s appearance could be excluded on the ground that he had absconded or concealed himself, and whether the delay could otherwise be condoned

Section 468(2)(b) of the CrPC bars cognizance after one year for an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year; the Court treated that period as applicable to the offences at issue.

Under Section 470(4)(b) of the CrPC, time may be excluded where the accused has absconded or concealed himself to avoid arrest.

Section 473 permits cognizance after limitation where the delay is properly explained or extension is necessary in the interests of justice; under State of H.P. v. Tara Dutt, (2000) 1 SCC 230, that discretion must be exercised judicially and supported by a speaking order recording the requisite satisfaction.

The Court found that the police issued notice under Section 41(1) of the CrPC on 27 August 2023, and the petitioner appeared that same day.

The record contained no indication that he had been declared a proclaimed offender or that proceedings under Sections 82–83 of the CrPC had been initiated.

The fact that notice was issued nearly three years after the FIR did not establish that he had absconded or concealed himself, so the prosecution could not claim exclusion of that period under Section 470(4)(b).

Further, neither the cognizance order nor the revisional order recorded a reasoned extension of limitation under Section 473, as required by Tara Dutt.

It allowed the petition and set aside both the trial court’s cognizance order dated 4 November 2023 and the revisional order dated 20 July 2024.