https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114008 A complaint for non-filing of a company's balance-sheet and profit and loss account was treated as validly instituted when filed through an authorised representative, because section 200 CrPC does not require the complainant's personal examination in every case. The objection that the witness was not authorised was rejected. The default in filing statutory accounts was also treated as a continuing offence, since the non-compliance persisted until the obligation was fulfilled. On that basis, the limitation bar under section 468 CrPC did not apply. The commentary states that the acquittal was set aside and liability followed for the statutory default. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114008 A complaint for non-filing of a company's balance-sheet and profit and loss account was treated as validly instituted when filed through an authorised representative, because section 200 CrPC does not require the complainant's personal examination in every case. The objection that the witness was not authorised was rejected. The default in filing statutory accounts was also treated as a continuing offence, since the non-compliance persisted until the obligation was fulfilled. On that basis, the limitation bar under section 468 CrPC did not apply. The commentary states that the acquittal was set aside and liability followed for the statutory default. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114008