9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 415X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, and the respondents in each case are different persons. However, in view of the common point involved in all these cases, I have decided to dispose of all the revisions together by way of a common order. The revision petitioner, who is hereinafter referred to as the complainant in this order, had filed 32 complaints against various companies alleging that some of them have violated section 159 of the Companies Act, 1961 ('the Act') and some of them have violated section 220 of the Act; both offences are punishable under section 162 of the Act. It is not in dispute that all the complaints have been filed after the expiry of six months prescribed under section 468(2)( a ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded one. There are more than one judgment of this Court holding that in such circumstances in a case of dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused is not entitled to notice. To that effect, there are judgments, namely, (1) S. Thiyagarajan v. Ayyamperumal [1983] LW Crl. 212, (2) Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose AIR 1963 SC 1430, (3) Fella Pandi alias Maruthian Thevar v. Annathai Ammal [1975] LW Crl. 162, (4) Jalaludeen v. Syed Ibrahim [1978] LW Crl. 178. In view of this settled position of law, as evidenced by a catena of decisions, as referred to above, I thought it fit to dispense with notice to the respondents in the criminal revision petition and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd., In re [1988] LW Crl. 181 and Cr. M.P. Nos. 7417 and 7419 of 1986. The first two judgments have been rendered by Justice Mrs. Padmini Jesudurai J. and the last one was rendered by Justice Mr. T.S. Arunachalam J. (as he then was). Uniformly all the judgments hold that the offences complained of in these complaints are continuing offences and, there- fore, the period of limitation prescribed in law is not attracted. In view of the settled position of law, I have no hesitation in setting aside the orders impugned in each of the revision cases and remand the matter back to the trial Court for further action in accordance with law. Though initially notices have been ordered in all the revision cases to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
