Complaint against Statutory auditor. A Deputy Registrar was competent to institute the complaint because the definition of "Registrar" in the Companies Act includes a deputy registrar, so cognizance under Section 439(2) was valid. The prosecution was also not barred by limitation, as the alleged offence under Section 448, read with Section 447, carried punishment extending up to ten years, taking it outside Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, the proceedings against the statutory auditor were quashed because the complaint did not disclose any specific overt act, deliberate falsity, or mens rea attributable to him; the allegations were vague and did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 448, making continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.
Complaint against Statutory auditor. A Deputy Registrar was competent to institute the complaint because the definition of "Registrar" in the Companies Act includes a deputy registrar, so cognizance under Section 439(2) was valid. The prosecution was also not barred by limitation, as the alleged offence under Section 448, read with Section 447, carried punishment extending up to ten years, taking it outside Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, the proceedings against the statutory auditor were quashed because the complaint did not disclose any specific overt act, deliberate falsity, or mens rea attributable to him; the allegations were vague and did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 448, making continuation of the prosecution an abuse of process.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
