TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (6) TMI 29
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ond and third petitioners respectively in this application. They seek an order from this Court relieving them from the alleged offence with which they are charged by the show-cause notice dated 14th July, 2010 issued by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal. 2. Two usual points are taken. The first is that the alleged offence has become time barred and no Court can take cognizance of it. The second is that considering the show cause and the answer given to it, it is possible for the Court to hold that the petitioners had acted reasonably and honestly and that they should be let off under section 633(2). 3. It appears that the office of the Regional Director had conducted an inspection under section 209A of the Companies Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to directors, etc.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no company (hereinafter in this section referred to as "the lending company") make any loan to, or give any guarantee or provide any security in connection with a loan made by any other person to, or to any other person by,- (a ) to (c)** ** ** (d) Any body corporate at a general meeting of which not less that twenty-five per cent of the total voting power may be exercised or controlled by any such director or by two or more such directors together; or (e) Any body corporate, the Board of directors, managing director, or manager whereof is accustomed to act in accordance with the directions or instructions of the Board, or of any director or directors, of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., that the date of knowledge is the date of the show-cause notice which is 14-7-2010. Hence limitation did not set in when this application was filed. 9. The commencement of the period of limitation is from the date of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the offence by the person aggrieved (See section 469(1)(a) and (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Let me assume that on the date of the alleged offence the Registrar of Companies had no knowledge. But by 22-12-2008 the Registrar is deemed to have knowledge of the offence as knowledge by the office of the Regional director is knowledge of the Registrar of Companies. (See the cases of Bithal D. Mundra v. Registrar of Companies [2011] 164 Comp. Cas. 375 (Cal.), Mishra Dh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....56 (Cal.) has held that if cognizance of alleged offence is barred by limitation the High Court could exonerate the accused and relieve him from liability. I would apply the same principle here. 12. Two points raised by Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Central Government have to be decided before disposing of this case. 13. He argued that there was no complaint petition before the Court under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the Court could not exercise the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint against the accused or to discharge him. 14. Brother Sanjib Banerjee J. in the case of S.B.I. Home Finance Ltd. v. Regional Director, Department of Company [2007] 75 SCL 460 (Cal.) has held that the ....