https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111264 A prosecution under section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be governed by the general limitation period under the Code of Criminal Procedure because the offence carried only a short term of simple imprisonment; the complaint lacked a satisfactory explanation of limitation and cognizance was therefore beyond time. A former director who had resigned before declaration of the dividend was not liable vicariously, as he was not in office at the time of the alleged default. The complaint also failed to plead that he knowingly participated in the contravention or otherwise set out the essential ingredients of the offence, so the proceedings were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:12:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111264 A prosecution under section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be governed by the general limitation period under the Code of Criminal Procedure because the offence carried only a short term of simple imprisonment; the complaint lacked a satisfactory explanation of limitation and cognizance was therefore beyond time. A former director who had resigned before declaration of the dividend was not liable vicariously, as he was not in office at the time of the alleged default. The complaint also failed to plead that he knowingly participated in the contravention or otherwise set out the essential ingredients of the offence, so the proceedings were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111264