SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(SC) 140

N.P.SINGH
R. Aghoramurthy, Registrar Of Companies, Bombay – Appellant
Versus
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing Company LTD. – Respondent


(1) THE Sole question that arises for determination in this appeal is as to the date when the offence in question came to the knowledge of the appellant within the ambit of Section 469(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter mentioned as the Code). The maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offence, complained of is six months. According to S. 468(2(b) the period of limitation is one year if the offence is punishable for a term not exceeding one year.

(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 subserve is clearly in consonance with the concept of fairness of trial as enshrined inArticle21 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore, of












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top