9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 629(A) of the Companies Act. Seeking to quash the said case, the petitioners are before this Court with this petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent as well as perused the records carefully. 3. Though several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would focus his arguments on the ground that the prosecution in the instant case is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel pointed out that the maximum punishment provided under Section 629(A) of the Companies Act is only fine for which as per Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. the limitation period is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay order has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. In this case, the stay was ordered on 23.10.2003 and it was vacated on 27.04.2005. This period has to be necessarily excluded while computing the period of limitation. But after 27.04.2005, the complaint was not filed within six months, the reason stated is that some time was taken to complete the investigation and to get permission from the Central Government. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this period has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation as per Section 470(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For better understanding, let us look into the said provision, which reads as follows: Section 470(3): Where no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntral 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. 11. 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. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No. 124 of 2006 on the file of the learned Addl. Chief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
