https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111607 Criminal complaints alleging mis-statements in a prospectus were not liable to be quashed on limitation grounds where the complainant's asserted date of knowledge was disputed and depended on contested facts that required trial. The Court held that, in such circumstances, limitation could not be conclusively decided in quashing proceedings. It also held that a director could not avoid prosecution merely by claiming to be an ordinary director, because the Companies Act, 1956 contemplates liability of an officer in default based on the role actually played and the complaint alleged responsibility of all directors for the prospectus statements. The prosecution was permitted to proceed because a prima facie case was disclosed. en-us Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:55:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111607 Criminal complaints alleging mis-statements in a prospectus were not liable to be quashed on limitation grounds where the complainant's asserted date of knowledge was disputed and depended on contested facts that required trial. The Court held that, in such circumstances, limitation could not be conclusively decided in quashing proceedings. It also held that a director could not avoid prosecution merely by claiming to be an ordinary director, because the Companies Act, 1956 contemplates liability of an officer in default based on the role actually played and the complaint alleged responsibility of all directors for the prospectus statements. The prosecution was permitted to proceed because a prima facie case was disclosed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111607