https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312516 Prosecution under the Companies Act was held to be time-barred because the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period after excluding only the time during which a stay order operated. The court noted that delay after the stay was vacated could not be excluded merely on the basis that administrative permission from the Central Government had been sought, because Section 470(3) CrPC applies only where the statute itself requires consent or sanction. An administrative permission to initiate prosecution is not the same as a statutory sanction. As the complaint was not instituted within six months from the date the stay ceased, the proceedings were liable to be quashed. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Feb 2024 05:57:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312516 Prosecution under the Companies Act was held to be time-barred because the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period after excluding only the time during which a stay order operated. The court noted that delay after the stay was vacated could not be excluded merely on the basis that administrative permission from the Central Government had been sought, because Section 470(3) CrPC applies only where the statute itself requires consent or sanction. An administrative permission to initiate prosecution is not the same as a statutory sanction. As the complaint was not instituted within six months from the date the stay ceased, the proceedings were liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 17 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312516