TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... munication dated 20th February 2009 the basis of the instructions has not been sought for by the applicants herein. In the affidavit filed by the Central Government it has been stated that permission has been sought to withdraw the prosecutions directed. For violation of Sections 295 and Section 299 of the 1956 Act the Central Government can impose either a fine or direct imprisonment of six months. Section 299 also postulates imposition of fine, therefore, the period of limitation would not exceed one year. As the show-cause has not been issued within one year of the offence, if any nor has any application been filed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure within the time specified above entitles the petitioners to being exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given on 19th November, 2007. The said reply was found to be unsatisfactory and resulted in issuance of a show cause notice dated 12th May, 2007 and 27th May, 2009. An extension of time was sought to give reply but when no extension was granted C.P.217 of 2008 was filed wherein an order was passed on 16th June, 2008 extending the time to file the reply to the show cause notice issued on 12th May, 2008. Three sets of show cause notices have been issued. The first set of show cause notice was issued on 12th May, 2008 under Sections 209(3)(b), 217(3), 297, 209(1) and 292(1)(e) of the 1956 Act. Time was sought for filing reply. Without granting time as sought a second set of show cause notice was issued on 27th May, 2008 under Sections 209(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad. In the show cause notice dated 2nd February, 2009 loan aggregating to approximately ₹ 4 lakhs has been show to have been given in the financial year 2006-2007. The show cause notice of 2nd February, 2009 is based on the show cause notice of 12th May, 2008 and without disposing of the show cause notice of 12th May, 2008 so also 27th May, 2008 the show cause notice of 2nd February, 2009 could not have been issued. 3. Similarly on 12th May, 2008 a show cause notice was issued under Section 209(3)(b) and 217(3) of the 1956 Act. The said issue was dealt by the company in Clause 10 of its reply dated 19th October, 2007. The said has also not been considered by the Central Government and in total non-application of mind has directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e books of accounts of the company either on the basis of a complaint or independently. The provisions of the Companies Act is applicable to the company as it is a listed company and therefore it had to comply with the provisions of the 1956 Act. The show cause notice under Section 209(3)(b) was issued on 12th May, 2008 and a similar show cause was issued on 27th May, 2008. Pursuant to order dated 16th June, 2008 a reply has been given to the show cause notice dated 27th May, 2008. The reply given by the petitioner was found not to be satisfactory and therefore, steps have been taken in accordance with law by directing launch of prosecution. The petitioner seeks consideration of the reply given by the company on 19th November, 2007. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956 Act. 9. The third set of show-cause notice has been issued under Sections 295 and 299 of the 1956 Act. 10. A reply has been given to the show-cause notice dated 27th May, 2008 and the same has also been considered and decision taken to launch prosecution which instruction was communicated by letter dated 2nd December, 2008. This will appear from Order dated 20th February, 2009. 11. Show-cause notice issued under Section 209(3)(b) and Section 217(3) of the 1956 Act deals with leave encashment and Accounting standard 15. 12. Those issued under Section 297 of the 1956 Act deals with transaction for expenses and services to be shared by the Company with some of its group companies for which sanction is needed. 13. Show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d February, 2009 and needs to be considered. The loan was given last in 2006-07. The court ought to have taken cognizance of the offence within one year from the date of commission of the offence, i.e., by 2008. The show-cause notice dated 2nd February, 2009 is beyond the period of one year. The order of injunction by this Court was passed on 2nd March, 2009. No order of injunction was sought by the Central Government. For violation of Sections 295 and Section 299 of the 1956 Act the Central Government can impose either a fine or direct imprisonment of six months. Section 299 also postulates imposition of fine, therefore, the period of limitation would not exceed one year. As the show-cause has not been issued within one year of the offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
