https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458504 Section 27 of the SEBI Act fastens liability only on persons who were in charge of, and responsible for, the company when the offence was committed. On the admitted record, the accused director had resigned before the company's non-compliance matured into an offence, and the complainant's own materials, including Form 32, supported that fact. In those circumstances, the High Court held that continuance of the criminal complaint would be an abuse of process and that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could be used to prevent a prosecution where no offence was made out against the petitioner. The complaint and the order refusing discharge were therefore quashed as against the petitioner. en-us Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2024 17:55:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458504 Section 27 of the SEBI Act fastens liability only on persons who were in charge of, and responsible for, the company when the offence was committed. On the admitted record, the accused director had resigned before the company's non-compliance matured into an offence, and the complainant's own materials, including Form 32, supported that fact. In those circumstances, the High Court held that continuance of the criminal complaint would be an abuse of process and that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC could be used to prevent a prosecution where no offence was made out against the petitioner. The complaint and the order refusing discharge were therefore quashed as against the petitioner. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458504