TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mic offences-II, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken cognizances for the offences under Section 185(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as "the Act"), as against the petitioners. 2. The respondent filed complaint under Section 203 of the Act, as against the petitioners and others for the offence punishable under Section 185(2) of the Act. The crux of the complaint is that the petitioners company viz., M/s.Dalmia Bharat Limited was inspected under Section 206 of the Act, by an Officer authorized by the Central Government. He had observed that the company without obtaining the previous approval of the Central Government had made loan to M/s. Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Limited, in which the Directors of the company are in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned ACGSC to the effect that the Central Government had the knowledge about the commission of the offence only on the basis of the report of investigation dated 01.12.2005 and thereafter, the complaint was filed after obtaining sanction order from the Ministry of Company Affairs dated 01.05.2006 is unacceptable. It is relevant to note that as early as on 23.10.2003 itself the Government passed an order to investigate into the affairs of the company by appointing Mr. Sharad Krishan Sharma as Inspector to investigate into the affairs of the company, viz., DSQ Software Limited. Therefore, the Government could have had the knowledge even as early as in the year 2003 itself about the alleged commission of the offence by the said company un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, than, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded. Explanation.-In computing the time required for obtaining the consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority, the date on which the application was made for obtaining the consent or sanction and the date of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lieu of various complaints against the petitioners received by the respondent, an inspection under Section 206(5) of the Act was initiated by communication dated 01.07.2016 by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. During the inspection, it was found that the petitioners did not act in due compliance of the provisions of Section 185 of the Act. Therefore, they liable to be punished under Section 185(2) of the Act. Thus, the respondent issued show cause notice on 14.06.2018 and on receipt of the reply found that it was not satisfactory. Therefore, the respondent lodged the impugned complaint before the concerned Court for the offence punishable under Section 185(2) of the Act. It is a compoundable offence, but neither the petitioners nor other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8. Thereafter, the respondent lodged complaint on 12.04.2019. 7. This Court repeatedly held in various judgments that there is absolutely no provision available under the Act contemplating prior sanction for initiating prosecution of the offence under the Act. According to the respondent, there was a delay for obtaining sanction from the authority concerned and as such the complaint was lodged belatedly. 8. Further the respondent had knowledge about the commission of the offence by the petitioners company as early as on 14.06.2018. Since, there is no provision available under the Act contemplating the prior sanction for initiating prosecution for the offence under the Act, the knowledge of the alleged commission of offence must have come ....