https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108921 Prosecution for alleged contravention of section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as subject to the one-year limitation under section 468(2)(b) CrPC because the default was complete when the accounts-related duty under section 211(2) read with Schedule VI was breached. The court noted that the provision did not impose a day-to-day obligation and therefore the breach was not a continuing offence attracting section 472 CrPC. Knowledge of the alleged default was at least apparent by the first show-cause notice proposing prosecution, so the complaint filed later was time-barred. Section 473 was not available on the facts. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:27:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108921 Prosecution for alleged contravention of section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as subject to the one-year limitation under section 468(2)(b) CrPC because the default was complete when the accounts-related duty under section 211(2) read with Schedule VI was breached. The court noted that the provision did not impose a day-to-day obligation and therefore the breach was not a continuing offence attracting section 472 CrPC. Knowledge of the alleged default was at least apparent by the first show-cause notice proposing prosecution, so the complaint filed later was time-barred. Section 473 was not available on the facts. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108921