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

1987 Supreme(Del) 444

D.P.WADHWA
KULDIP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.L.Behl, M.S.Gandhi, RAJIV NANDA, S.K.DUBEY, S.K.MISHRA, USHA KUMARI

D. P. Wadhwa, J

( 1 ) THE only question that arises in this petition and other petitions which are being disposed of by this order is if the offences under Sec. 159 read with Sec. 162 and Sec. 220 again read with Sec. 162 of the Companies Act 1956 (for short the Act ) are continuing offences within the meaning of Sec. 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short the Code ) so as to remove the bar of limitation to take cognizance of the offences as provided by Sec. 468 of the Code. Under sub s. (1) of Sec. 468 of the Code, a court cannot take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under sub-s. (2) of that section. In the case where the offence is punishable with fine only, the period of limitation prescribed is six months. Sec. 472 of the Code provides however, that in the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. Sec. 159 of the Act provides for filing of annual returns by the company and fixes the time by which the annual return is to be filed with the Registrar of Companies. The return is to be in the form prescribed and is to co

















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