https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429083 A complaint for non-payment of dividend under the amended Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as alleging a continuing offence, so the limitation objection under Section 468(2) of the CrPC did not apply. However, the Court held that the complainant's authority to prosecute depended on the statutory scheme under Section 55A read with the second proviso to Section 621, and on the facts that authority did not continue after the dividends had been paid. As a result, the complaint lacked valid locus standi and the criminal petition succeeded, leading to quashing of the proceeding. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Oct 2022 08:50:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429083 A complaint for non-payment of dividend under the amended Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as alleging a continuing offence, so the limitation objection under Section 468(2) of the CrPC did not apply. However, the Court held that the complainant's authority to prosecute depended on the statutory scheme under Section 55A read with the second proviso to Section 621, and on the facts that authority did not continue after the dividends had been paid. As a result, the complaint lacked valid locus standi and the criminal petition succeeded, leading to quashing of the proceeding. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 12 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429083