Section 519 BNSS: Extension of period of limitation in certain cases (Formerly Section 473 CrPC)

Section 519 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Extension of period of limitation in certain cases

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 519

Section 519 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 473 of the CrPC, 1973) empowers any Court to 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.

Discretion to Condone Delay: Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of Chapter XXXV, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation.
Statutory Grounds for Extension: Must be satisfied: (a) that the delay has been properly explained; or (b) that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
Mandatory Judicial Reason Recording: The Court must record explicit reasons and pass a reasoned judicial order condoning delay before taking cognizance.
Hearing to Accused Before Condonation: The accused has a right to be heard before delay is condoned, as limitation confers a vested right of immunity.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62: The Constitution Bench settled that Section 473 CrPC (Section 519 BNSS) is a non-obstante clause overriding the limitation bar; courts must balance the interest of justice in prosecuting offenders against prejudice caused to the accused by delayed trials.
Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999) 4 SCC 690: The Supreme Court held that taking cognizance without applying mind to the limitation bar and without condoning delay is illegal; in domestic violence and cruelty cases, interests of justice favor condonation.
Sukhdev Raj v. State of Punjab, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 198: Held that the court cannot condone delay sub silentio; an express, reasoned judicial order under Section 473 CrPC is an indispensable prerequisite.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If the Magistrate took cognizance of a time-barred complaint without the complainant filing a condonation application or without recording reasons under Section 519, challenge the summoning order as void under Sukhdev Raj.