Extension of period of limitation in certain cases
Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with extension of period of limitation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence 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 or that it is nece The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence 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 or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
CHAP
MISCELLANEOUS.
CHAPTER XXXVII
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 473, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 519 Extension of period of limitation in certain cases Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Provides power to extend time for taking cognizance; not limited to three years unlike FSSA
-
Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint is filed many years after an alleged instantaneous offence (not a continuing offence), beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 CrPC, without plausible explanation for delay, by a litigant who has exhausted all civil and arbitral remedies and lost therein, and where earlier complaints on substantially identical facts have been dismissed on merits, and where material facts such as earlier dismissals have been suppressed, the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence or the availability in law to prosecute crimes after long periods. The court must protect innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous litigants who seek to weaponize criminal proceedings as a tool for vengeance after civil defeat.
On this section: Enables court to condone delay provided it is satisfied with explanation and delay condonation is required in interest of justice. Court held that while exceptions exist, the delay of 15 years with no plausible explanation cannot be condoned.
-
K. L. Singh vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have occurred in 1996, with the claim for damages being rejected in 2001 and communicated thereafter, cannot be initiated in 2011 (more than 9 years after rejection). The alleged offence of misappropriation/criminal breach of trust constitutes an instantaneous offence, not a continuing offence. The injury caused was complete on the date of rejection of the claim. Successive complaints on identical facts filed by frustrated litigants who have failed in civil and arbitration proceedings, after full consideration and dismissal of earlier complaints on merit, constitute abuse of process and are not maintainable under law. The courts must protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons through frivolous criminal complaints.
On this section: Court may condone delay in certain exceptional circumstances if satisfied that extension of limitation is required in interests of justice. Burden on complainant to justify extraordinary delay.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically Section 59, will have overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution for such offences must proceed under the FSSA framework rather than under the IPC, and simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is not permissible. The FSSA provides a comprehensive and exhaustive legislative framework for food safety with more stringent penalties and procedural safeguards than the IPC, and was enacted specifically to consolidate and replace the multiplicity of food-related laws that existed prior to its enactment.
On this section: Power to extend time for taking cognizance under CrPC; noted as not limited to three years unlike FSSA
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food constitutes an offence under both Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA regime, and there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both the IPC and FSSA. The FSSA being comprehensive, exhaustive legislation consolidating all food-related laws with more stringent punishments and procedural safeguards, the IPC provisions are excluded from application in food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Provides power to extend limitation period for IPC offences without three-year cap
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Power to extend time for taking cognizance under IPC, not limited to three years unlike FSSA
-
Suman vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is named in a first information report or complaint with allegation of committing a particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not file a charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure if from the evidence collected or produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which such person can be tried with other accused. The non-filing of charge-sheet by police against such person is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 319 CrPC.
On this section: Computation of period of limitation; discussed in context of limitation issues raised in Section 319 proceedings
-
C.p. Yogeshwara vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for electoral offences cannot be quashed on the ground of limitation alone, as the court possesses statutory power under Section 473 CrPC to extend the limitation period in the interest of justice. However, the trial court must consider the question of limitation before proceeding further against the accused, taking into account the exclusion of the absconding period under Section 470 CrPC and the discretionary power to extend limitation under Section 473 CrPC, after hearing both parties.
On this section: Power to extend period of limitation; the court acknowledged the trial court's power to extend limitation either on application or suo moto if necessary in the interest of justice.
-
Somesh Shokeen vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for taking cognizance of certain offences applies to the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution/criminal proceedings, and not to the date when the court or Magistrate takes cognizance. A complaint filed within the period of limitation cannot be rendered infructuous or defeated by delay in court proceedings beyond the control of the complainant, as this would violate the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The limitation period commences from the date of the offence or the date when the offence is detected, as specified in Section 469 CrPC, and the court's act of taking cognizance is not subject to a separate limitation period.
On this section: Overriding provision enabling courts to condone delay where properly explained or where interest of justice demands extension of limitation period.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors., 2014(2) SCC 62. 41. In the case of Vanka Radhamanohari vs. Vanka Vankata Reddy and Ors ., (1993) 3 SCC 4, the Apex Court noted the basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that in order to exercise the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the Court to examine not only whether such …
-
… Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors., 2014(2) SCC 62. 41. In the case of Vanka Radhamanohari vs. Vanka Vankata Reddy and Ors ., (1993) 3 SCC 4, the Apex Court noted the basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that in order to exercise the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the Court to examine not only whether such …
-
… Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors., 2014(2) SCC 62. 41. In the case of Vanka Radhamanohari vs. Vanka Vankata Reddy and Ors ., (1993) 3 SCC 4, the Apex Court noted the basic difference between Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and observed that in order to exercise the power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay, whereas Section 473 enjoins a duty on the Court to examine not only whether such …
Questions about Section 473
What have the courts held on Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides power to extend time for taking cognizance; not limited to three years unlike FSSA. Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 7 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 473, section 473 CRPC, section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (21 Feb 2024).
What should I read with Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 519 (Extension of period of limitation in certain cases), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 473, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.