Sections 468 to 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which governed limitation periods for taking cognizance of certain offences, have been replaced by Sections 512 to 517 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The substantive framework — a graded limitation period from six months to three years depending on the severity of punishment, with no limitation for offences punishable with more than three years — remains unchanged. The most significant addition is a new statutory explanation in Section 514 BNSS clarifying that the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of filing the complaint or recording the FIR, not the date on which the Magistrate actually takes cognizance.
What changed
| Feature | Sections 468-473 CrPC (Old) | Sections 512-517 BNSS (New) |
|---|---|---|
| Limitation — fine only | 6 months | Same — 6 months |
| Limitation — up to 1 year imprisonment | 1 year | Same — 1 year |
| Limitation — 1 to 3 years imprisonment | 3 years | Same — 3 years |
| Limitation — more than 3 years imprisonment | No limitation | Same — no limitation |
| Relevant date for computation | Judicially settled (complaint filing date) but no statutory explanation | New statutory explanation: date of filing complaint under Section 223 or recording information under Section 173 |
| Commencement of limitation | Date of offence (general rule) | Same — date of offence or date of knowledge |
| Exclusion of time | Time taken for obtaining consent/sanction excluded | Same — retained |
| Extension of limitation | Court may extend if satisfied on just grounds | Same — retained |
| Court closure days | Excluded from computation | Same — retained |
Full statutory text
Section 468 CrPC (Old Law):
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
Section 514 BNSS (New Law):
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Sanhita, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be— (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
Explanation.—For the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date shall be the date of filing complaint under section 223 or the date of recording of information under section 173.
Key differences
Statutory explanation on computation date: The most important change. The Explanation to Section 514(2) expressly states that the limitation period is computed from "the date of filing of the complaint under section 223 or the date of recording of information under section 173." This codifies what the Supreme Court had settled in Sarah Mathew — that the relevant date is when the complaint is filed or information is recorded, not when the Magistrate actually applies judicial mind to take cognizance.
Resolution of judicial ambiguity: Before this statutory explanation, there was persistent litigation over whether limitation should be computed from the date of filing the complaint (the complainant's act) or from the date of taking cognizance (the Magistrate's act). The Sarah Mathew Constitution Bench settled this in favour of the filing date. The BNSS now makes this the statutory rule, eliminating the need to rely on judicial interpretation.
Cross-reference to BNSS sections: The Explanation references Section 223 (complaint procedure) and Section 173 (FIR recording). This connects the limitation chapter to the specific procedural provisions under which complaints and information are received.
Limitation periods unchanged: The graded periods — six months (fine only), one year (up to one year imprisonment), three years (one to three years imprisonment), and no limitation (over three years) — remain exactly the same. There is no expansion or contraction of limitation periods.
Extension power retained: Section 519 BNSS (corresponding to Section 473 CrPC) retains the court's power to extend the limitation period if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice and that there is sufficient cause for the delay. This safety valve prevents limitation from becoming an instrument of injustice.
Exclusion provisions retained: The exclusion of time taken for obtaining consent or sanction (Section 516 BNSS / Section 470 CrPC), exclusion of the date on which the court is closed (Section 517 BNSS / Section 471 CrPC), and the rule on continuing offences remain substantively identical.
What this means for practitioners
For complainants: The statutory explanation provides certainty — the limitation period stops running when the complaint is filed under Section 223, regardless of when the Magistrate takes cognizance. This protects complainants from delays in the Magistrate's office that are beyond their control. File complaints well within the limitation period and obtain a dated acknowledgment.
For the defence: Limitation objections must now be computed from the complaint filing date, not the cognizance date. If the defence argues that cognizance was taken after the limitation period, the relevant inquiry is whether the complaint was filed within time — the Magistrate's delay in processing does not affect limitation.
For Magistrates: The statutory explanation removes discretion on the computation question. Courts must compute limitation from the filing date. Any confusion between the "filing date" and "cognizance date" — which generated substantial litigation under CrPC — is now legislatively resolved.
For offences with short limitation: For fine-only offences (six-month limitation), the statutory clarification is particularly important. A one-month delay by the Magistrate in taking cognizance could have been fatal under the competing interpretation. The BNSS now ensures that Magistrate processing delays do not defeat meritorious complaints.
Does old case law still apply?
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62: The Constitution Bench held that the date of filing the complaint is the relevant date for computing limitation, not the date of taking cognizance. This ruling is now codified in the Explanation to Section 514(2) BNSS. The judgment's reasoning and principles continue to apply.
Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394: The Supreme Court's observations on the purpose of the limitation bar — to prevent harassment through stale complaints — remain relevant. The limitation periods themselves are unchanged.
Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559: The principles regarding the commencement of limitation (generally the date of the offence, or the date of knowledge where the offence is concealed) continue to apply under Section 515 BNSS.
Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran (1990) 1 SCC 377: The ruling on extension of limitation under Section 473 CrPC — that the court must be satisfied there is sufficient cause and it serves the interest of justice — continues to govern Section 519 BNSS.
All case law on computation, exclusion, and extension of limitation under Sections 468-473 CrPC applies to Sections 512-517 BNSS, subject only to the statutory confirmation that the filing date (not the cognizance date) is the starting point.
Frequently asked questions
What is the limitation period for filing a criminal complaint in India? It depends on the punishment: six months for offences punishable with fine only, one year for imprisonment up to one year, and three years for imprisonment between one and three years. There is no limitation for offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment.
From when is the limitation period calculated? Under Section 514 BNSS, the limitation period runs from the date of filing the complaint under Section 223 or the date of recording information under Section 173 — not from the date the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Can the limitation period be extended? Yes. Under Section 519 BNSS (corresponding to Section 473 CrPC), the court may take cognizance of an offence after the limitation period if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of justice and that sufficient cause for the delay is shown.
Does limitation apply to murder or other serious offences? No. Limitation under Section 514 BNSS applies only to offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years. Offences punishable with more than three years, life imprisonment, or death have no limitation period.