https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110714 Allegations of violation of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules 10 and 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 could not be treated as a mere fine-only contravention for limitation purposes. Because section 58A provided imprisonment for officers in default, the longer-punishment framework under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be considered. The question whether the receipts were in fact deposits within section 58A was a disputed factual issue for trial, not for quashing under section 482. The plea that the complaint was time-barred was therefore rejected, and the criminal proceeding was not quashed. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:11:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110714 Allegations of violation of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules 10 and 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 could not be treated as a mere fine-only contravention for limitation purposes. Because section 58A provided imprisonment for officers in default, the longer-punishment framework under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be considered. The question whether the receipts were in fact deposits within section 58A was a disputed factual issue for trial, not for quashing under section 482. The plea that the complaint was time-barred was therefore rejected, and the criminal proceeding was not quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110714