https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112723 A criminal complaint arising from a preferential offer document was found unsustainable because it repeated earlier allegations on the same facts, indicating mala fides and abuse of process. The Court also held that the complaint was time-barred, as the alleged defaults were complete years before filing and were not continuing offences. On the merits, the pleaded facts did not establish criminal breach of trust or misappropriation under sections 403 and 406 IPC, and section 73 of the Companies Act was inapplicable because the offer was not a public prospectus. Directors could not be prosecuted merely by virtue of office, absent specific averments or a statutory basis for vicarious liability. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 May 2012 15:01:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112723 A criminal complaint arising from a preferential offer document was found unsustainable because it repeated earlier allegations on the same facts, indicating mala fides and abuse of process. The Court also held that the complaint was time-barred, as the alleged defaults were complete years before filing and were not continuing offences. On the merits, the pleaded facts did not establish criminal breach of trust or misappropriation under sections 403 and 406 IPC, and section 73 of the Companies Act was inapplicable because the offer was not a public prospectus. Directors could not be prosecuted merely by virtue of office, absent specific averments or a statutory basis for vicarious liability. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112723