9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the false statements. The balance sheets have been filed on 31.03.2001 and 31.03.2002 respectively, hence, the respondent had knowledge of the alleged irregularities under the Companies Act during March, 2001 and March, 2002 respectively, itself, however, they issued the show cause notices only during February, 2005 and filed the complaints during July, 2005. The maximum punishment for the offence under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, is imprisonment for two years and shall also be liable to fine. Hence, the complaints should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of making false statements - In the present case, though the respondent had knowledge of the alleged irregularities under the Comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited has not been reflected in the Balance Sheet for the year 31.03.2001 under the headings 'unsecured loan' and 'loans and advances' respectively. On account of the non-disclosure of the above details, the accounts do not give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Company. Hence, violated the provisions of Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4.The allegation in E.O.C.C.No.273 of 2005 is that M/s.Square D Distilleries Limited was inspected under Section 209 A of the Companies Act, 1956, by an Officer authorized by the Ministry. During the course of inspection, it was observed that the amount of ₹ 20.00 Crores borrowed from M/s.DSQ Bio-tech Limited and subsequently the loans made to M/s.Uniforge St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wledge of making a false statement. 7.The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent would further submit that in the present case, once the respondent had knowledge of the offence, the respondent issued the show cause notices during February, 2005 and filed the complaints during July, 2005. Hence, the complaints have been filed well within the limitation period. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the criminal original petitions. 8.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9.The relevant portion of the decision of the Delhi High Court, relied upon by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, dated 22.09.2010 made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement - (a) which is false in any material particular, knowing it to be false; or (b) which omits any material fact, knowing it to be material; he shall, save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine. 12.In the present case, no date was mentioned in the complaints as to when inspection under Section 209 A of the Companies Act, 1956, was conducted. Hence, it is presumed that the date on which the balance sheets have been filed is the date of knowledge of making the false statements. The balance sheets have been filed on 31.03.2001 and 31.03.2002 respectively, hence, the respondent had knowledge of the alleged ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
