Crl.O.P. filed to quash proceedings for alleged violation of Section 629(A) of the Companies Act. Court held prosecution barred by six-month limitation since statutory sanction was not required and exclusion of sanction period not applicable.
Proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.125 of 2006 quashed and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.11.2014
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Crl.O.P.No.855 of 2010 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending in E.O.C.C.No.125 of 2006 on the file of the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.Harshad P. Goklaney for Mr.M.Vaidyanathan For Respondent : Mr.M.Dhamodharan SCGSC
The petitioners are accused in E.O.C.C.No.125 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 complaint alleging that the petitioners have violated Section 314 of the Companies Act, 1956, thereby, they are liable for punishment under Section 629(A) of the Companies Act. Seeking to quash the said case, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition.
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 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 receipt of the order of the Government or other authority shall both be excluded.”
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RECORDS)
Dated: 01/12/2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kk
To
1.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
EO II Egmore Chennai
2. Do thro The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Egmore Chennai 600 008.
+1 cc to Mr.M.Damodaran Advocate sr55422
+2 ccs to Mr.M.Vaidyanathan Advocate sr.54973
Crl.O.P.No.855 of 2010
and M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
mg(co)
aa03/12/2014
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution for an offence under Section 629(A) of the Companies Act, 1956 is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
Whether administrative permission from the Central Government to launch prosecution equates to statutory consent for excluding the period under Section 470(3) of the Cr.P.C.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Govind Rajan and others
M.O. Roy
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
