https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103509 Limitation under the CrPC and mens rea for prosecution under section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as matters not suitable for quashing at the threshold. The court held that, where the alleged offence was punishable only with fine, limitation under sections 468 to 473 depended on when the complainant gained knowledge of the offence, and the disputed date of knowledge required evidence. It also held that the complaint prima facie disclosed mens rea against the directors described as officers in default, since the averments suggested knowledge and wilful participation, and any defence could be raised before the trial court. The petition to quash was dismissed and prosecution allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:29:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103509 Limitation under the CrPC and mens rea for prosecution under section 297 of the Companies Act, 1956 were treated as matters not suitable for quashing at the threshold. The court held that, where the alleged offence was punishable only with fine, limitation under sections 468 to 473 depended on when the complainant gained knowledge of the offence, and the disputed date of knowledge required evidence. It also held that the complaint prima facie disclosed mens rea against the directors described as officers in default, since the averments suggested knowledge and wilful participation, and any defence could be raised before the trial court. The petition to quash was dismissed and prosecution allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 23 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103509