LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

MRS. SARAH MATHEW versus THE INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES BY ITS DIRECTOR - DR. K.M. CHERIAN & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 12 S.C.R. 674 · Decided: 26-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 674 
MRS. SARAH MATHEW 
v. 
THE INSTITUTE OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES BY 
ITS DIRECTOR - DR. K.M. CHERIAN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 2005) 
NOVEMBER 26, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, RANJANA 
PRAKASH DESAI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 468 and 469 rlw s. 473 - Bar to take cognizance after 
lapse of the period of limitation - Commencement of period 
D of limitation and extension thereof - Held: For the purpose of 
computing the period of limitation u/s 468, the relevant date 
is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution 
of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes 
cognizance - In view of s. 469, period of limitation in relation 
E to an offence shall commence either from the date of offence 
or from the date when the offence is detected -
If the 
complaint is filed after the period of limitation, complainant can 
make an application for condonation of delay u/s 473 -
Court 
will have to issue notice to accused and after hearing the 
ยท accused, and the complainant, decide whether to condone the 
F delay or not -
If the complaint is filed within the period of 
limitation and court takes cognizance after the period of 
limitation then complainant cannot be expected to make an 
application for condonation of such delay -
s.473 postulates 
condonation of delay caused by the complainant in filing the 
G complaint -
It is the date of filing of the complaint which is 
material - ss. 468 and 469 will have to be read with s. 473 -
Interpretation of statutes - Legislative intent - Limitation. 
Chapter XXXVI -
s.468 r!w ss. 469 and 473 - Bar to take 
H 
674 
SARAH MATHEW v. INST OF CARDIOVASCULAR OISE. BY ITS 675 
DIR. - DR. K.M. CHERIAN 
cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation -
Taking of A 
'cognizance' - Connotation of - Held: 'Cognizance' is entirely 
an act of the court - Magistrate takes cognizance when he 
applies his mind or takes judicial notice of an offence with a 
view to initiating proceedings in respect of offence which is 
said to have been committed -
This is the special B 
connotation acquired by the term 'cognizance' and it has to 
be given the same meaning wherever it appears in Chapter 
XXXVI - The only harmonious construction which can be 
placed on ss. 468, 469 and 470 is that Magistrate can take 
cognizance of an offence only if the complaint in respect of it c 
is filed within the prescribed limitation period - He would, 
however, be entitled to exclude such time as is legally 
excludable - Besides, Cr.P.C. is a procedural law to be 
construed liberally to serve justice -
There is no scope for 
application of doctrine of casus omissus -
Interpretation of 0 
statutes - Harmonious construction -
Liberal construction -
Doctrine of casus omissus. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
Purposive construction - Held: There is no ambiguity in E 
the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C. -
But, the 
word 'cognizance' has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. The rule 
of purposive construction can be applied in such a situation 
-
A purposive construction of an enactment is one which 
gives effect to the legislative purpose by following the literal F 
meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in 
accordance with the legislative purpose or by applying a 
strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in 
accordance with legislative purpose - If in a case literal 
interpretation appears to be in any way in conflict with the G 
legislative intent or is leading to absurdity, purposive 
interpretation will ..have to be adopted - Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - Chapter XXXVI. 
Doctrine of reasonable construction -
Court would 
interpret a provision which would help sustaining the validity H 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 12 S.C.R. 
A of Jaw by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction 
rather than applying a doctrine which would make the 
provision unsustainable and ultra vires the Constitution. 
Heading of Chapter - Held: 'Heading' or 'title' prefixed to 
8 
sections or group of sections have a limited role to play in 
construction of statutes - They may be taken as very broad 
and general indicators or the nature of the subject matter dealt 
with thereunder but they do not control the meaning of 
sections if the meaning is otherwise ascertainable by reading 
the section in proper perspective along with other provisions. 
c 
Maxims: 
Relevance of legal maxims in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.