https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103824 Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary before the 17 April 1989 amendment to section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 were outside the mischief of the unamended provision, so section 374 could not be invoked for that prior conduct. Penal provisions must be strictly construed, and conduct not punishable when committed cannot be treated as an offence by later retrospective legislation. Because the complaint omitted the material fact of the prior investment, it failed to disclose any offence under section 372(4); the cognizance and refusal-to-cancel orders were therefore unsustainable, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:13:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103824 Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary before the 17 April 1989 amendment to section 372 of the Companies Act, 1956 were outside the mischief of the unamended provision, so section 374 could not be invoked for that prior conduct. Penal provisions must be strictly construed, and conduct not punishable when committed cannot be treated as an offence by later retrospective legislation. Because the complaint omitted the material fact of the prior investment, it failed to disclose any offence under section 372(4); the cognizance and refusal-to-cancel orders were therefore unsustainable, and continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103824