9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mis-statements made in each financial year - the date of knowledge is upto the financial year 31st March, 2000 and 31st March, 2001 regarding diversion of funds and the complaint was filed on 7th May, 2002 the complaint was not barred by limitation - the limitation arises from the date of knowledge of the offense committed - petition dismissed. - CRL. M. C. no. 380 OF 2011, CRL. M. A. no. 1504 OF 2011 (STAY) - - - Dated:- 20-3-2012 - MS. MUKTA GUPTA, J. Subodh Kumar for the Petitioner. Anuj Aggarwal and Gaurav Khanna for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 17th August, 2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have heard learned counsels for the parties. Briefly the fact giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that on 7th May, 2002 the Respondents filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 456/2002(now bearing No. 539/03) under Sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the Petitioners and co-accused. In the complaint, the Respondent alleged that the Petitioners along with other persons are signatory to the prospectus dated 7th July, 1996 and there was mis-statement/false statement in the prospectus with willful intention to induce the investors to invest into the equity capital of the Company and put the investors to loss. The complaint fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the balance-sheet and no reasons have been given for grant of such loans. 5. In view of the mis-statement as well as false statement, the department of company affairs vide order dated 13th March, 2002 accorded its permission to lodge the complaint resulting in the filing of the complaint. 6. A perusal of the complaint thus shows that the allegations of mis-statement of facts are till the financial year 2001. In Rajiv Kumar ( supra ) this Court held: "6. In the present case, the respondents have submitted that it is only when a balance sheet was filed by the petitioners for the year ending 31.03.2001 that they came to know that the statement made in the prospectus was not correct and accordingly they gave a show cause notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law has been already discussed by this Court in the judgment quoted above. No contrary judgment has been cited. 7. It would be thus seen that the Court came to the conclusion that the averment in the complaint were per se false. However, in the present case the complaint clearly stated all the mis-statements made in each financial year. Since the date of knowledge is upto the financial year 31st March, 2000 and 31st March, 2001 regarding diversion of funds and the complaint was filed on 7th May, 2002 the complaint was not barred by limitation. It is well-settled that the limitation arises from the date of knowledge of the offence committed. For a balance-sheet on 31st March, 2001 no knowledge can be attributed prior thereto. Thus, I fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
