9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 2. Bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Lack of Sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.: 1. The petitioners, who include the National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, the Company Secretary, and the present Chairman-cum-Managing Director, challenged the cognizance order dated 1.12.1994 on the grounds of lack of sanction against the petitioners as required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners argued that as they were appointed by the President of India, prior sanction from the appropriate authority was necessary for their prosecution. They contended that under Section 21 of the IPC, they are considered public servants and thus require protection under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which was not obtained. 3. The court examined the definition of a public servant under Section 21 of the IPC and acknowledged that the petitioners fall under this category. However, it was noted that not all public servants are covered under the protection of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The court referred to the Apex Court decision in Md. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar, which clarified that the protection under Section 197 is not available unless other conditions in that section are fulfilled. 4. The court further referred to the case of K. Ch. Prasad v. Smt. J. Vanalatha Devi and Ors., where it was held that sanction under Section 197 is required only for public servants who are not removable from their office except by or with the sanction of the Government. Since there was no record that the petitioners could not be removed from their posts without government sanction, the court rejected the contention that prior sanction was necessary for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. Bar of Limitation under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.: 1. The petitioners also argued that the prosecution was barred by the law of limitation. They contended that the offence under Section 211 of the Companies Act, which provides for a penalty of imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to Rs. 1000/-, is subject to a one-year limitation period under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The court noted the dates on which the balance sheets were filed and the dates when the complaints were lodged and cognizance taken. The prosecution was initiated much after the one-year limitation period had expired. 3. The court referred to Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., which bars taking cognizance of an offence after the lapse of the period of limitation. For offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year, the limitation period is one year. 4. The court examined whether the date of filing the balance sheet could be construed as the date of knowledge of the offence by the Registrar of Companies. It referred to the Apex Court decisions in R. Aghoramurthy, Registrar of Companies, Bombay v. Bombay Dyeing & Mf. Co. Ltd. and Ors., and Registrar of Companies v. Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals Ltd., which held that the period of limitation starts from the date the Registrar of Companies gains knowledge of the offence. 5. In the present case, the court noted that the inspecting officer found the anomalies on 19.11.1993, and the Regional Director communicated these to the company on 12.11.1993. The complaint was filed on 1.12.1994, which was beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of knowledge. 6. The court concluded that the prosecution was lodged beyond the period of limitation, and thus, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence without an application for condonation. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, quashing the orders of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Cuttack dated 1.12.1994, which took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the petitioners.
|
