https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311627 Prosecution for advancing a loan without prior approval under section 295(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held barred by limitation because the offence was complete when the loan was advanced and was not a continuing offence. The complaint was filed beyond the one-year limitation period applicable to the offence. Section 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not extend limitation, as the Companies Act did not require Central Government sanction for prosecution under section 295(4). A later show-cause notice, issued after expiry of limitation, could not cure the defect. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jan 2024 11:46:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311627 Prosecution for advancing a loan without prior approval under section 295(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held barred by limitation because the offence was complete when the loan was advanced and was not a continuing offence. The complaint was filed beyond the one-year limitation period applicable to the offence. Section 470 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not extend limitation, as the Companies Act did not require Central Government sanction for prosecution under section 295(4). A later show-cause notice, issued after expiry of limitation, could not cure the defect. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 07 Apr 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311627