Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether cognizance of the complaint alleging contravention of section 370(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Analysis: The complaint was filed long after the balance-sheets had been furnished and after the inspection and show-cause process had already disclosed the alleged violation. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 bars cognizance after the prescribed period, and section 469(1)(b) postpones commencement of limitation until the offence first comes to the knowledge of the aggrieved person. On the admitted dates, the Registrar had knowledge of the alleged default, at the latest, when the inspection wing issued notice after detecting non-compliance, and the subsequent complaint was filed beyond one year from that point. The Court treated the complaint as clearly time-barred and held that the matter need not be left to trial court consideration.
Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the complainant or authority has knowledge of the offence from the material furnished or from its own inspection, limitation under section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 begins from that date and cognizance cannot be taken after the period prescribed by section 468.