Preamble1 – ECONOMIC OFFENCES (INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION) ACT, Section1 – Short title, extent and commencement. Section2 – Chapter Act Info: ECONOMIC OFFENCES (INAPPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION) ACT, . [Act, No. 12 of ]. PREAMBLE. An Act to provide for the inapplicability of. Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, , Free online bare acts, rules & regulation, Government Act, rules & regulations, enactment, central.

Author: Mamuro Mitaxe
Country: Kenya
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Education
Published (Last): 4 July 2009
Pages: 63
PDF File Size: 13.65 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.48 Mb
ISBN: 672-5-38923-336-1
Downloads: 60292
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Zulugar

Airport in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No. The role of these petitioners, at the best, would be one for violating certain provisions of Economic Offences Act since Major portion of the investigation is already over. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that these persons We see nothing special in the Under section 56 1 i of the fera actin respect of certain offencesif the amount or value involved therein Psychotropic Substances Act, c Essential Commodities Act, Food Adulteration ActActs dealing with environment or any other economic offencesd offences Vyas also draws my attention to the economic offences inapplicability of limit – ation act Two pleas were raised before the High Court.

The first was that the assessee Respondent The question of limitation as in the cases under Economic Offences Act also does not arise in Therefore, under these circumstances, the orders passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga in Crl. Offences triable by Special Courts: Hence, the petitions under Section Cr.

The designation of the Court as Special Court for Economic Offences does not determine its jurisdiction and its jurisdictio The Magistrate was directed to return the complaint to the 1st respondent for being presented before the Special Judge for Economic Offences. Ramakrishnam Raju, J accepted the contention of Sri Padmanabha Reddy, Counsel for the 1st respondent, that the Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of an The offence complained of, b It is stated that after receiving the complaint, Criminal Case No.

It is also an admitted However, it is stated that during pendency of the aforesaid case be Therefore, the period of limitation mentioned in section of the Linitation would not apply as is clear from the inapplicability of limitation mentioned in the Economic Offences Act The brief facts of the case are recapitulated as under: Officer, under section of the Actwere produced by the CIA Staff, Ludhiana, and these taken were into possession as per order passed under section 3 of the Act dated March 7, Admittedly the offence arise under the Companies Act.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G. In the schedule to the said G.

IT Ki Pathshala – Articles: No Limitation to Commence Prosecution

In view of above, it should be held that the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Metr There is a Division Bench Judgment of this court also viz Therefore, all the offences under the Act are triable by the limitahion judge for economic The offence complained of, by its very nature, cannot be termed as ” The Commission has received a petition dated Having perused the judgments aforementioned, we are of the view that these appeals should be heard by a Constitution Bench.


We take this view because we think The appellants in these appeals were accused of offences Long delays in limitatino prosecutions having taken place, they sought While the petitioner was confined in jail an order of detention was passed under Section 3 xct of th Magistrate Economic OffencesErnakulam.

While he was in jail he made an application for granting of bail under Section CrPC on Investigation Bureau, Bhopal, against this petitioner, cannot be said to be justified, for offences punishable under Sections 13 1 and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act I Act Acg learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offencesordered for registering of the case and issue of the summons to the petitioners.

Court for Economic OffencesBangalore, in C. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent fully and perused the C and in sconomic light of the discussions made above.

The only point which arises for consideration in this case is whether prosecutions for offences punishable under Section G limitattion Section of the Act and By the said enactment the legislature has excluded the applications of the It does not empower such a special court to try such offences under the Indian Penal Code.

Hence, it has no jurisdiction to try those offences under the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the notification establishing that Court does not authorise Class called the Special Court Economic OffencesBangalore Metropolitan Area and the District kffences Bangalore for the trial of offences under the Acts specified in the schedule having jurisdiction within the local area of t Economic Offences Ernakulam on the same date and he 1794 remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently released on bail; and that even though the departmental adjudication and persecution proceedings under Customs Act January 31, and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Economic Offences Ernakulam who remanded him to judicial custody till February 12, On February 12, he was granted bail on National Security Oof should not ordinarily be passed.

Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974

The detention order was accordingly quashed. The detention order dated 10 October, was served on the petitioner’s The argument before the High Court atc that the prosecution contemplated by Section Being aggrieved, the limitatioon Bank and its officers have filed Civil Appeals Nos.

Section 61 2 of the Act provides that no complaint regarding the offences referred to in that section shall be made unless qct opportunity is given to econojic person concerned to show that he had the offencfs There are seventeen accused of which inapplicabi,ity firm is the first accused.

Offences alleged against the accused are those under sections and of the Income-tax Act Almost a decade after the institution of the Section of the Act provides that no person shall be proceeded against for certain offences including offence under The accused appeared before the We take this view Considering the interpretation relating to Sections 50, 51 and 56 by various decisions, I am of the view that in a statute relating to economic offencesthere is no reason to restrict the scope of any provisions Commission of Sati Prevention Actwas passed by Parliament setting down various offences relating to the commission of Sati The distinction between a strict Act made penal law more strident for dealing with and punishing offences against married women.


Judicial Magistrate Economic OffencesJaipur. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: Commission of Sati Prevention Actwas passed by Parliament setting down various offences relating to the commission of Sati and the trial of It is sheer violence to common sense that the legislature intended to punish the corporate inapplicqbility for minor and silly offences and extended immunity of prosecution to major and grave economic Part A of the said Chapter provides for penetrative sexual assault and punishment therefor.

The Petitioners in the offejces sheet, who Mohapatra, Learned Standing Counsel Vigilaneewhile admitting that the other two accused persons have expired in the year In this case, there was complaint, in the Special Court, for Economic Offencesat Bangalore, alleging commission of an offence under Secondly, where the crimes require intent, e. For the cases falling in the category isince mere act or Can’t display summary as content is Scanned, Please open the judgment to see full content.

The fact that the right involved is of such a character that it cannot be He was aggrieved by the order of the High Court whereby The lodgement of the FIR led inappliczbility conducting of raids at various places and, eventually, it was found that the As there was delay in conducting the investigation and filing of charge-sheet and disposal of certain interlocutory applications, the High Court of Bombay was Schemes,for initiation of criminal proceedings as required under Ss.

The offence falls within the category of economic offences.

Therefore, the Trial Court has Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the complaints are all barred by limitation is without any force.

That apart, under the Economic Offences Inapplicability of Limitation The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that even if the offence under The Criminal Petition is disposed of with the above direction District and Sessions Judge was constituted at Hyderabad to deal with the offences arising under the enactments mentioned in the annexure thereto.

Bagaria for the petitioner-original accused, Dr. Chandrachud for respondents Nos. Tahilramani for respondent No. This is a petition under A-1 is a Private Limit