https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103165 A fixed-date default under rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was held not to be a continuing offence, so prosecution had to comply with the six-month limitation for a fine-only contravention under section 468 CrPC; the complaint was therefore time-barred. The court also held that a director could not be treated as an "officer in default" under section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 without proper service of show-cause notice, because statutory liability depends on knowing default or wilful participation. On both grounds, the criminal proceedings were quashed. en-us Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:58:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103165 A fixed-date default under rule 3A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was held not to be a continuing offence, so prosecution had to comply with the six-month limitation for a fine-only contravention under section 468 CrPC; the complaint was therefore time-barred. The court also held that a director could not be treated as an "officer in default" under section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 without proper service of show-cause notice, because statutory liability depends on knowing default or wilful participation. On both grounds, the criminal proceedings were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103165