https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111683 Prosecution for alleged contravention of section 73(2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 was not barred by limitation because cognizance depended on a complaint by the Registrar or another authorised person, and limitation under the criminal procedure law ran from the date the offence came to the knowledge of the competent prosecuting agency. The relevant complaint reached the Registrar through the stock exchange on 1-7-1998, so prosecution initiated soon after that knowledge was treated as timely. The plea that limitation should run from the date of the public issue was rejected, and the criminal proceedings were not quashed. en-us Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Apr 2012 17:07:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111683 Prosecution for alleged contravention of section 73(2B) of the Companies Act, 1956 was not barred by limitation because cognizance depended on a complaint by the Registrar or another authorised person, and limitation under the criminal procedure law ran from the date the offence came to the knowledge of the competent prosecuting agency. The relevant complaint reached the Registrar through the stock exchange on 1-7-1998, so prosecution initiated soon after that knowledge was treated as timely. The plea that limitation should run from the date of the public issue was rejected, and the criminal proceedings were not quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111683