https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112507 A criminal complaint alleging misstatement and false statements in a prospectus was barred by limitation because the offences under sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 were punishable up to two years, attracting the three-year period under section 468 CrPC. The later claim that the complainant discovered the falsity only from subsequent material did not establish the starting point of limitation or justify exclusion of time, and the continuing-wrong theory was rejected. As the delay was not specifically and satisfactorily explained before cognizance, the prosecution had become time-barred and the complaint and summoning order were quashed. en-us Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 09 Nov 2014 22:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112507 A criminal complaint alleging misstatement and false statements in a prospectus was barred by limitation because the offences under sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 were punishable up to two years, attracting the three-year period under section 468 CrPC. The later claim that the complainant discovered the falsity only from subsequent material did not establish the starting point of limitation or justify exclusion of time, and the continuing-wrong theory was rejected. As the delay was not specifically and satisfactorily explained before cognizance, the prosecution had become time-barred and the complaint and summoning order were quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112507