Limitation for company law prosecution runs from knowledge of the competent prosecutor, not the earlier transaction date.

Prosecution for alleged contravention of section 73(2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 was not barred by limitation because cognizance depended on a complaint by the Registrar or another authorised person, and limitation under the criminal procedure law ran from the date the offence came to the knowledge of the competent prosecuting agency. The relevant complaint reached the Registrar through the stock exchange on 1-7-1998, so prosecution initiated soon after that knowledge was treated as timely. The plea that limitation should run from the date of the public issue was rejected, and the criminal proceedings were not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings for the alleged contravention of section 73(2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 were barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The complaint was not treated as time-barred from the date of the public issue, because the statute governing cognizance required prosecution to be initiated on a complaint by the Registrar or other authorised person. The relevant complaint reached the Registrar through the stock exchange only on 1-7-1998, and the period of limitation under the criminal procedure law commenced when the offence came to the knowledge of the prosecuting agency. Since prosecution followed soon after such knowledge, limitation did not bar the proceedings.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and the request to quash the criminal proceedings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prosecution can be initiated only after the offence comes to the knowledge of the competent prosecuting agency, limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure begins from that point of knowledge and not from the earlier date of the underlying transaction.

---