9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Central Government is required. It may be true that on the administrative side permission is obtained from the Central Government to launch prosecution, but that permission cannot be equated to a consent or sanction to be obtained statutorily as referred to under sub-section 3 of Section 470 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, this period cannot be excluded at all from the period of limitation. If it is done, obviously the complaint is barred by limitation because the complaint was not launched within six months atleast from 27.04.2005, the day when stay order was vacated. Admittedly the complaint was launched only in the year 2006, thus the prosecution is barred by limitation. Therefore, the proceedings is liable to be quashed. Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But a stay was granted by the Court on 23.10.2003 and on an application to vacate the stay was filed, this Court vacated the stay on 27.04.2005. Immediately after 27.04.2005, the investigation has been taken up and a report was drawn only on 01.12.2005. Thereafter, the Central Government gave permission to launch prosecution only on 01.05.2006. It is further stated that within six months from 01.05.2006, the present complaint has been filed and thus it is not barred by limitation. 4. I have considered the above submissions. 5. In this case, the post of full time Company Secretary was laying vacant from 26.09.2002. But in Form 32, produced by the petitioner, it is shown that one Mr.Shreenivasan was so appointed on 01.11.2005. Therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x months from the said date and thus the complaint is not barred by limitation. 8. In my considered opinion, the said contention cannot be accepted at all. The consent or sanction as has been referred to in sub-clause 3 of Section 470 of Cr.P.C. relates to consent or sanction which is obtained under the Statute itself. Here in this case, to prosecute a person for offence punishable under Section 383(1A) of the Companies Act, neither any consent nor any sanction from the Central Government is required. It may be true that on the administrative side permission is obtained from the Central Government to launch prosecution, but that permission cannot be equated to a consent or sanction to be obtained statutorily as referred to under sub-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
