1998 (12) TMI 487

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....--This revision is directed against the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-EOI, Madras-8, on February 28, 1996, in Crl. M.P. No. 656 of 1994. The respondent-company herein made an advertisement in The Express on May 24, 1993, inviting deposits from public. Since this advertisement was made without obtaining the permission of the Central Government, a complaint has been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eas the complaint has been filed only on September 27, 1994. If at least the complaint has been filed on February 24, 1994, or February 25, 1994, immediately on the date of dismissal of the application filed by the company, one can understand it. But it is not so. The petition filed seeking condonation does not give any reason for the delay from February 25, 1994, to September 27, 1994. The Supre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere, the delay is deliberate. It is not accompanied by an explanation. The offence alleged is technical in nature. The Supreme Court has held in Union of India v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. [1988] 38 ELT 739 that the fact that the Government being impersonal taking longer time in filing the appeals/petitions than the private bodies or the individuals even giving that latitude there must be some way or att....