9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the summons for direction. 3. The first show-cause notice which was issued under section 295(1)(c) of the Act related to inter-corporate deposit. The lender or depositor was BOC India Limited. The borrower or recipient was BOC Global Support Services Private Limited. These two companies had a common director. It was alleged that permission of the Central Government was required for making the inter-corporate deposit. Such permission was not obtained. Hence there was violation. The reply of the company which was made on 19 August, 2009, to an earlier identical notice was to the effect that in the decision making process for advancing the inter-corporate deposit, this director did not participate. 4. The alleged period of violation was Augu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of the spouse promoted the company's business interests. Hence, their presence was justified. 8. A very interesting point of limitation is raised. According to the petitioner all the alleged offences are barred by limitation. 9. The time prescribed by section 468 to take cognizance of the alleged offences indicated in the first show-cause notice, was one year. For the second and third show-cause notices it was six months as only a fine was involved. 10. The learned counsel for the Union of India, Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, raised a point of considerable importance. He argued that the date of commencement of the period of limitation should be the date when the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Registrar of Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a crime when he orders an enquiry. 14. This application was filed on 21 July, 2010. The order of injunction restraining the Central Government from prosecuting the petitioner was made by me on 28 July, 2010. 15. Within the aforesaid period of limitation, the criminal court is to take cognizance of the offence under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No such cognizance was taken by any court. 16. Now, the question is: What is the power of this court in an application under section 633(2) of the Act, in such cases? 17. When a prosecution under the Act is apprehended, any officer may under section 633 apply to the High Court for exoneration. 18. In dealing with such application, the High Court has power under section 635(1). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'honestly and reasonably' and, furthermore, having regard to the circumstances he ought to be excused [See section 633(1) of the Act]. Now, this power given to the High Court is part of the power given to it to relieve an accused. Such discretion is also vested in the criminal court to relieve an offender, if similar circumstances exist. In passing that judgment I had relied upon two decisions of our court in SBI Home Finance Ltd. v Regional Director, Department of Company Affair [2007] 138 Comp. Cas. 106/ 75 SCL 460 and Chandra Kumar Dhanuka v. Registrar of Companies [2008] 83 SCL 296 . 20. I read the following passage from the said unreported judgment delivered by me on 5 April, 2011, in the case of Bithal D Mundra (supra). "Section 63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds by framing of charges and so on. If the charge cannot be established at the trial the accused is acquitted. These are the elementary principles of our criminal procedure. A very relevant consideration in initiating criminal proceedings is the law of limitation. Section 468 of the Code enacts that no court is to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation. The court takes such cognizance when, inter alia, a complaint petition is filed before it under section 190. Considering section 468, the Magistrate has the power under section 203 to dismiss the complaint on the ground of limitation. Therefore, the powers of the Magistrate under section 633(1) to exonerate the accused in case he is of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is case the offences if proved were minor. 23. Nevertheless, in my judgment, the Central Government has deliberately not chosen to take steps within the period of limitation. 24. The order of injunction made by this court on 28 July, 2010, in my opinion, does not help the Central Government under section 470(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, because on the date the order of injunction was passed cognizance of the alleged offence had become hopelessly barred. It became hopelessly barred even assuming that time began to run from 20 July, 2009. 25. As the offences are minor and as no arguments were advanced in this behalf, I am not in favour of exercising powers extending the period of limitation under section 473 of the Code. 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
