Just a moment...
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 the criminal complaint alleging misstatement and false statements in a prospectus was barred by limitation, and whether the time taken in obtaining sanction could be excluded without pleading the date of application for sanction.
Analysis: The complaint was instituted long after the prospectus and the alleged offence, while the alleged offences under the Companies Act carried imprisonment up to two years, attracting the three-year limitation period under the criminal procedure law. The plea that limitation should run from the date of sanction failed because the complaint did not state when the request for sanction was made, when the sanction was received, or any facts showing why the delay was legally excludable. In the absence of those pleadings, the prosecuting agency could not rely on exclusion of time or contend that the complaint was within limitation. The Court treated the issue as settled by earlier decisions and applied the principle that a time-barred prosecution cannot proceed unless the delay is properly explained and lawfully condoned at the pre-cognizance stage.
Conclusion: The complaint was held to be barred by limitation and could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a prosecution is prima facie time-barred, exclusion of time for obtaining sanction is available only if the complaint clearly pleads the date of the sanction application and the date of grant of sanction, and the court applies its mind to limitation before taking cognizance.