TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n injunction restraining the directors, i.e., them and the petitioner, from interfering with the day-to-day affairs of the company and sought for an injunction during the pendency of the suit and when that petition was dismissed, he preferred appeals and during the course of hearing of those appeals it came to light that the said Mr. M. Venkateswarlu, in collusion with the petitioner, fabricated Form No. 2, dated December 7, 2001, on July 29, 2002, signed by the petitioner in his capacity as director of the company, which shows that 1,50,000 equity shares of the company were issued to him and Smt. G. Anita Reddy, knowing it to be false, and thus the petitioner (A-1) and Smt. Anita Reddy (A-2) are liable for punishment under the Companies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nies [2003] 116 Comp. Cas. 43 1 (AP), Kena Pentaih v. State [2002] 2 ALT (Crl.) 189 (AP), Registrar of Companies v. Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. [2000] 101 Comp. Cas. 271 2 (SC), V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra [1996] 85 Comp. Cas. 465 3 . (SC), K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala [1992] Crl. LJ 3779, Jagannathan v. State [1983] Crl. LJ 1748, K. Hanumantha Rao v. K. Narsimha Rao [1982] Crl. LJ 734, Jethmal Himmatmal Jain v. State of Maharashtra [1981] Crl. LJ 1813, Ajit Kumar Palit v. State of West Bengal AIR 1963 SC 765, S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar v. G.S. Murugan [1968] 38 Comp. Cas. 772 (Mad.), P.P. Looke v. N.J. Mathew [1967] 37 Comp. Cas. 790 (Ker.), T.S.R. Murthy v. Elisetti Venkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the knowledge of such person or to any police officer, whichever is earlier; would be the date for commencement of the period of limitation. 5. As per section 628 of the Act, a person making a false statement, in any material particular, knowing it to be false, or omits to show a material particular, knowing it to be material, in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other document required by or for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine. For offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to two years, the period of limitation, as per section 468(2)( c ) of the Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. Those decisions are of no help to the petitioner because the prosecution against him is not barred by limitation. 9. Since the facts in Krebs Biochemicals Ltd. s case ( supra ), Kena Pentaih s case ( supra ), Rajshree Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. s case ( supra ), V.M. Shah s case ( supra ), K.M. Mathew s case ( supra ), Ajit Kumar Palit s case ( supra ), S.A.K. Chinnathambi Chettiar s case ( supra ), P.P. Looke s case ( supra ) and T.S.R. Murthy s case ( supra ) are entirely different from the facts in this case, they are of no help in deciding this case. 10. No doubt prosecution launched under the Act was quashed in F.J. Heredia s case ( supra ) on the ground that the Supreme Court in Common Cause , A Registe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
