https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101139 Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as validly prospective where the penal liability arose from the later non-repayment of deposits, not from their earlier lawful acceptance. The Court distinguished acceptance of deposits from the distinct statutory duty to repay them after the amended due date, and held that Article 20 was not offended because the offence was constituted by continued default after the amendment. It further held that prosecution under section 58A(3)(a) read with section 629A was properly laid where the complaint concerned unpaid deposits accepted in accordance with Reserve Bank of India directions and remaining unpaid beyond the prescribed time. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:22:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101139 Section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as validly prospective where the penal liability arose from the later non-repayment of deposits, not from their earlier lawful acceptance. The Court distinguished acceptance of deposits from the distinct statutory duty to repay them after the amended due date, and held that Article 20 was not offended because the offence was constituted by continued default after the amendment. It further held that prosecution under section 58A(3)(a) read with section 629A was properly laid where the complaint concerned unpaid deposits accepted in accordance with Reserve Bank of India directions and remaining unpaid beyond the prescribed time. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101139