https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213685 For offences alleged against company officers, limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure ran from the date the Central Government, as the person aggrieved, acquired knowledge of the alleged offence. On the material before the Calcutta HC, that knowledge existed at least by the date of the show-cause notice, so the prosecution was not initiated within the applicable limitation period. The Court held that an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 allows the High Court to consider whether there is cause to proceed, and where cognizance cannot lawfully be taken because limitation has expired, it may refuse further prosecution. It declined to extend limitation under section 473 and discharged the petitioners. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Feb 2013 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213685 For offences alleged against company officers, limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure ran from the date the Central Government, as the person aggrieved, acquired knowledge of the alleged offence. On the material before the Calcutta HC, that knowledge existed at least by the date of the show-cause notice, so the prosecution was not initiated within the applicable limitation period. The Court held that an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 allows the High Court to consider whether there is cause to proceed, and where cognizance cannot lawfully be taken because limitation has expired, it may refuse further prosecution. It declined to extend limitation under section 473 and discharged the petitioners. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213685