Limitation Period Linked to Identification of Offender, Not Filing of Complaint

The law of limitation in criminal proceedings ensures that prosecutions are initiated within a reasonable time so that evidence remains reliable and accused persons are not subjected to indefinite uncertainty. However, determining the starting point of limitation often raises complex legal questions, particularly where the offence is discovered first, and the identity of the offender is revealed later.

In State of Kerala & Anr. v. Panacea Biotec Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified an important principle: the limitation period is linked to the identification of the offender and not merely to the filing of the initial complaint or knowledge of the offence. The Court interpreted Sections 468, 469, and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now, Sections 514, 515, 519 of BNSS). It held that the limitation period begins on the date the offender's identity becomes known, when that identity was initially unknown.

The judgment is significant for prosecutions involving regulatory offences, corporate liability, and cases where an investigation is required to identify responsible persons.

Factual Background

The case originated from a complaint regarding the alleged misbranding of a vaccine manufactured by Panacea Biotec Ltd. On 5 January 2006, a private individual complained to the Drugs Inspector about discrepancies in the labelling of a vaccine. The outer carton described the product as a pentavalent vaccine, while the vial inside was labelled as a tetravalent vaccine. The Drugs Inspector began an investigation after receiving the complaint and conducted inspections of medical stores and distributors.

Through documentary evidence such as invoices and credit notes, the authorities traced the supply chain and identified the manufacturers and distributors involved. The identity of all accused persons became known only on 18 April 2006.

Thereafter, a formal complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 20 January 2009, alleging offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons.

Proceedings Before the High Court

The accused challenged the proceedings before the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS). The High Court quashed the complaint primarily on procedural grounds relating to Section 202 CrPC.

Although the High Court did not invalidate the order condoning delay, it observed that the limitation should be calculated from the date of the offence or initial complaint. This effectively treated the prosecution as time-barred.

The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues

The Supreme Court considered two major issues:

1. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC (Sections 514, 515 BNSS).
   
2. Whether the Magistrate complied with the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC (Section 225 BNSS).
   

Statutory Framework

Section 468 CrPC (Section 514 BNSS) – Bar of Limitation

Section 468 prohibits courts from taking cognizance of offences after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period.

Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the limitation period is three years.

In the present case, the offence under Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act carried a punishment up to two years, making the limitation period three years.

Section 469 CrPC (Section 515 BNSS) – Commencement of Limitation

Section 469 provides that the limitation begins:

• From the date of offence, or
• From the date when the offence becomes known, or
• From the date when the identity of the offender becomes known.

Clause (c) is particularly important in cases where offenders are identified only after investigation.

Section 473 CrPC (Section 519 BNSS) – Extension of Limitation

Section 473 allows courts to take cognizance after expiry of limitation if:

• Delay is properly explained, or
• Taking cognizance is necessary in the interests of justice.

Supreme Court’s Interpretation

Limitation Begins When Identity is Known

The Supreme Court held that [Section 469(1)(c) CrPC (Section 515(1)(c) BNSS)] applied to the case because the identity of the offenders was initially unknown.

The Court observed that:

• The initial complaint only revealed the existence of misbranding.
• Investigation was required to identify the responsible parties.
• The identity of all accused became known only on 18 April 2006.

Therefore, limitation began from that date.

The Court held:

"The period of limitation would commence from the first day on which the identity of the offender is known."

Filing of Complaint Within Limitation

The complaint was filed on 20 January 2009, which fell within three years from 18 April 2006. The Court calculated that the limitation would expire only on 17 April 2009. Thus, the complaint was within limitation.

Error in High Court Approach

The High Court had treated the limitation as starting from 21 October 2005, when the discrepancy was first noticed.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach and held that:

• The relevant provision was Section 469(1)(c) of the CrPC [corresponding to Section 515(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and not Section 469(1)(b) CrPC [corresponding to Section 515(1)(b) BNSS].
• Limitations cannot start before the offender is identified.

Thus, the High Court's computation of limitation was incorrect.

Importance of Identification of the Offender

The judgment highlights an important practical reality:

In many offences, particularly regulatory or corporate offences:

• The offence may be detected first.
• The offender may be identified only after investigation.

If limitations were linked only to the date of the offence, many legitimate prosecutions would become impossible. The Court recognised this and adopted a realistic interpretation

Role of Investigation

The Court emphasised that an investigation is necessary to identify offenders. In this case:

• Documents were collected.
• Supply chains were traced.
• Statements were recorded.
• Companies were identified.

Only after this process could prosecution be launched. Thus, the limitation must logically begin from the completion of this identification process.

Public Servant Complaints

The complaint was filed by a Drugs Inspector, an authorised officer under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The Court held that:

• The Drugs Inspector was a competent complainant.
• Investigation conducted by him was lawful.
• The prosecution was properly instituted.

This strengthened the validity of the complaint.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision provides a clear and authoritative interpretation of limitation law in criminal proceedings. The Court held that where the offender is initially unknown, the limitation period begins only when the offender's identity is discovered.

By linking limitation to identification of the offender rather than mere filing of a complaint, the Court ensured that technicalities do not defeat substantive justice.

The judgment is particularly significant for regulatory offences, corporate prosecutions, and investigation-based cases. It strengthens the enforcement framework by ensuring that offenders cannot escape liability simply because identification requires time.

This ruling will serve as an important precedent for future cases involving criminal limitation and will guide courts in interpreting Sections 468 and 469 CrPC (Sections 514, 515 BNSS) in a practical and justice-oriented manner.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams