1991 (5) TMI 264 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the date when the offence came to the knowledge of the appellant within the ambit of Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation of Section 468 of the Code in relation to the limitation on prosecutions to prevent abuse of the court process.
3. Commencement of the period of limitation under different clauses of Section 469(1) of the Code.
4. Discrepancy in the dates of knowledge of the offence between the appellant and the respondents.
5. Analysis of the appellant's knowledge of the offence based on documentary evidence and correspondence.
6. Evaluation of the trial court's conclusion on the limitation period.
7. Review of the High Court's decision regarding the date of knowledge of the offence.
8. Examination of the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the appellant's knowledge of the offence.
9. Argument regarding the commencement of the limitation period based on the date of receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report.
10. Comparison of the decision in P.D. Jambekar vs. State of Gujarat with the present case on determining the date of knowledge.
11. Final decision on the appeal and dismissal based on the limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is to determine the date when the appellant acquired knowledge of the offence, as it impacts the limitation period under Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum imprisonment term and the corresponding limitation period are crucial factors in this determination.
2. The interpretation of Section 468 of the Code focuses on the objective of imposing a limitation on prosecutions to prevent delayed filings that may lead to the disappearance of material evidence or abuse of the court process. This interpretation aligns with the fairness of trial concept under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Section 469(1) outlines different scenarios for the commencement of the limitation period, depending on when the offender, the aggrieved person, or the investigating officer becomes aware of the offence, as specified in clauses (a), (b), and (c) respectively.
4. The discrepancy in the dates of knowledge of the offence between the appellant and the respondents raises questions about the clarity and specificity of the information provided in the complaints, affecting the determination of the limitation period.
5. The appellant's knowledge of the offence is analyzed based on documentary evidence, including notices and reports, to ascertain whether the appellant had prior knowledge before the specified dates claimed by the respondents.
6. The trial court's conclusion on the limitation period is crucial in assessing whether the appellant's knowledge aligns with the dates mentioned by the respondents, impacting the commencement of the limitation period.
7. The High Court's decision on the date of knowledge of the offence is reviewed to understand the basis for determining when the appellant became aware of the alleged offence.
8. The evaluation of the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts on the appellant's knowledge of the offence is essential in determining the consistency and reliability of the conclusions reached by the judiciary.
9. The argument regarding the commencement of the limitation period from the date of receipt of the Enquiry Officer's report is assessed to ascertain whether this event signifies the actual knowledge of the offence by the appellant.
10. The comparison of the decision in P.D. Jambekar vs. State of Gujarat with the present case provides insights into the relevance and applicability of past judgments in determining the date of knowledge of an offence.
11. The final decision on the appeal is based on the assessment of the limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the prosecution being clearly barred by limitation, as determined by the courts.