https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462459 Inspection and report proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013, followed by a Central Government direction to prosecute, were treated as satisfying the authorization requirement under Section 212(6), so the complaint was not invalid for want of sanction. The alleged diversion of funds was also viewed as a continuing fraudulent course of conduct extending into the 2013 regime, so prosecution under Section 447 was not barred as an ex post facto application of penal law. The materials disclosed a prima facie case fit for trial, and the narrow threshold for quashing under Section 482 CrPC was not met, so the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jun 2025 22:02:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462459 Inspection and report proceedings under the Companies Act, 2013, followed by a Central Government direction to prosecute, were treated as satisfying the authorization requirement under Section 212(6), so the complaint was not invalid for want of sanction. The alleged diversion of funds was also viewed as a continuing fraudulent course of conduct extending into the 2013 regime, so prosecution under Section 447 was not barred as an ex post facto application of penal law. The materials disclosed a prima facie case fit for trial, and the narrow threshold for quashing under Section 482 CrPC was not met, so the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462459