TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 853
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... incorporated on 15.11.1995. The second accused is the Managing Director, the third and fourth accused are the whole time Directors of the said company, and the fifth accused is the Chief Financial Officer of the company; that the petitioner/A6 was the Chief Financial Officer from 02.05.2016 to 01.08.2016. The allegation is that the first accused company did not appoint a cost auditor within the time limit prescribed under Section 148(3) and Rule 6(2) of Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 and thereby violated Section 148(6) of the Companies Act punishable under Section 148(8) of the Companies Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed on the ground that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of its bottling plant on the basis of the agreement executed with Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. (A-1). Since the appellants were not in the picture at all at the time when the complainant alleges to have spent money in improving the bottling plant, neither can any guilty intention be attributed to them nor can there possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant. No offence of cheating can, therefore, be said to have been committed by the appellants on account of the fact that a notice was given to the complainant that the bottling agreements will not be renewed any further after expiry of the initial term. Thus, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be absolutely true and correc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any, after the violation was committed, are also liable as they had not taken steps to rectify the violation, is fallacious. This can be demonstrated. For instance, if the complaint is filed in the year 2020 for the alleged violation that had taken place in the year 2015, can all the officers who were in charge of the company between 2015 and 2020 be prosecuted since the offence is continuing. The answer is 'No'. If such an interpretation is given, the persons/accused in the complaint would be based on when the respondent had filed the complaint. In the instant case, the respondent could have filed the complaint immediately after the violation. If they had filed the complaint immediately, the petitioner would not have been an accuse....