9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) Fazal Ali, J. speaking for the bench has explained the object of S. 468 of the Code in the following words in State of Punjab vs. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 S.C.C.34: THE object of the Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecutions were clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence. The object which the statutes seek to sub-serve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined inArticle21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that any prosecution, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for clarification on the Auditors' Report and Directors' Report or at any rate on 29/07/1986 on which date the 1st respondent gave its explanation. Admittedly in none of the complaints it has been averred specifically that on which date the appellant came to know of the commission of the offence but it is in general stated, The complainant has filed this complaint within the time which, in our view, is clouded with misty vagueness. (5) It is relevant to note that the appellant himself in his notice dated 8/07/1986 has stated, Thus violation of S. 205 and 211 (true and fair view of loss not shown) are clearly discernible which version demonstrates that the appellant had the knowledge of the commission of the offence even on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the complainant had knowledge and even sent a report to the Department. But it was the Department in turn ordered inspection. Therefore, the complainant cannot be heard to say that till the inspection report came he cannot be said to have knowledge of the offence. It must be noted that the knowledge as per section 468 of the code is that of the complainant; if the Department for its own reasons ordered further investigation by way of inspection etc., that does mean that complainant can be said to have had knowledge only after receipt of the inspection report, namely, after the Department also was satisfied about laying the complaint. (9) It is submitted by Mr. Tulsi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, that the appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
