https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458538 A criminal complaint alleging an untrue statement in a prospectus under Section 63 was held not to be quashed at the threshold merely because a director claimed reliance on a due diligence report and belief in its truth. The court held that the prosecution must show prima facie material that the prospectus contained an untrue statement, while the statutory exception for immateriality or reasonable belief is a defence to be proved by the accused, consistent with the burden rule under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. At the stage of process, the Magistrate need only assess prima facie support for the complaint, and the proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 17:16:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458538 A criminal complaint alleging an untrue statement in a prospectus under Section 63 was held not to be quashed at the threshold merely because a director claimed reliance on a due diligence report and belief in its truth. The court held that the prosecution must show prima facie material that the prospectus contained an untrue statement, while the statutory exception for immateriality or reasonable belief is a defence to be proved by the accused, consistent with the burden rule under Section 105 of the Evidence Act. At the stage of process, the Magistrate need only assess prima facie support for the complaint, and the proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458538