https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105448 Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar a prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 where earlier proceedings concerned distinct breaches of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The earlier cases related to advertisement and liquidity requirements, while the later charge required proof of acceptance of deposits beyond the permitted limit and failure to repay within 30 days; the ingredients were not the same, so the later prosecution was maintainable. The challenge to the finding of deposit contravention failed because the record disclosed legal evidence supporting the concurrent findings. The directors were properly treated as officers in default on the basis of their management role and participation in the company's affairs. en-us Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:50:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105448 Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar a prosecution under section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 where earlier proceedings concerned distinct breaches of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The earlier cases related to advertisement and liquidity requirements, while the later charge required proof of acceptance of deposits beyond the permitted limit and failure to repay within 30 days; the ingredients were not the same, so the later prosecution was maintainable. The challenge to the finding of deposit contravention failed because the record disclosed legal evidence supporting the concurrent findings. The directors were properly treated as officers in default on the basis of their management role and participation in the company's affairs. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105448