2010 (8) TMI 180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1956 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 468 Cr.P.C. 2. It is submitted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint was three years from the date of alleged mis-statement or false statement in the prospectus and the present complaint was filed after about 7 years. The prospectus was issued by the petitioner on 17-7-1996 and the complaint was filed on 7-5-2002. 3. A perusal of section 468 Cr.P.C. would show that the period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence where the punishment prescribed under law for offence was a term of one year imprisonment but not exceeding three years imprisonment, was three years. The starting point of limitation as prescribed under section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d knowledge about the false statement cannot be gone into by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. as it involves a probe into the facts. When a complaint is filed before the Court of Magistrate under sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, the Court of Magistrate is supposed to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. Whether, the complaint was filed within period of limitation is a matter of evidence. This Court in Bhupinder Kaur Singh v. Registrar of Companies [2008] 85 SCL 135 considered this question and observed as under:- "11. Coming to the question of limitation, again this is a mixed question of law and fact. As mentioned above, falsity/misstatement in the prospectus can be proved by sho....