2014 (11) TMI 1279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SC ORDER S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The petitioners are accused in E.O.C.C.No. 123 of 2006 on the file of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai. The respondent is the complainant in the case. The respondent has filed the said private complaint alleging that the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 383(1A) of the Companies Act, which states....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....limitation. According to the respondent, commission of the offence came to light on 2003 and thereafter the investigation was immediately undertaken. But a stay was granted by the Court on 23.10.2003 and on an application to vacate the stay was filed, this Court vacated the stay on 27.04.2005. Immediately after 27.04.2005, the investigation has been taken up and a report was drawn only on 01.12.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taken to get permission from the Central Government has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation as per Section 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For better understanding, let us look into the said provision, which reads as follows: Section 470(3): Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d within six months from the said date and thus the complaint is not barred by limitation. 8. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted at all. The consent or sanction as has been referred to in sub-clause 3 of Section 470 of Cr.P.C. relates to consent or sanction which is obtained under the Statute itself. Here in this case, to prosecute a person for offence punishable u....