Radha Satish Timblo And 3 ORS v. The Union Of India, Thr. Its Secretary And 2 ORS
Uma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6 OF 2024 RADHA SATISH TIMBLO AND 3 ORS ....PETITIONERS
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA, THR.
ITS SECRETARY AND 2 ORS ....RESPONDENTS Mr. D. Pangam, Senior Advocate along with Mr. S. Priolkar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 16th APRIL 2026 P.C.:
1. In continuation of his arguments, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pangam for the Petitioners has tendered a short note encapsulating his oral submissions which is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Chodankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. He has produced Departmental Circular No.3/76/2015-CL.II dated 20.06.2016 which is a Circular issued to all Regional Directors and All Registrars of Companies. He has also produced Notification dated 31.12.2015, issued by the Ministry of
Corporate Affairs and another Communication dated 01.04.1976, issued by the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs.
4. He would submit that these documents have to be read in conjunction with the Reports dated 01.05.2012, 19.02.2014 and 24.03.2014, issued by the Registrar of Companies from time to time.
5. Placing reliance on these documents he would submit that the complaint is filed within time since the "sanction" was received on 16.06.2014 from the Joint Director, Office of the Regional Director, Western Region Mumbai to launch prosecution for violation under Section 217 of the Companies Act against the Petitioners. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Pangam responded with four-fold submissions.
6. Firstly, that there is no statutory requirement for obtaining sanction to launch prosecution under Section 217 of the Companies Act either in the Companies Act itself or in any other statute.
7. Secondly, he would submit even taking the proposition canvassed by Mr. Chodankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel at his highest, the documents that he has submitted and relied upon, would qualify to be "sanction" as prescribed by law or even adhering to the guidelines set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he would submit that these documents
even taken at face value do not reveal any application of mind as is envisaged while granting sanction for prosecution.
8. Thirdly, he would submit that there is not even a passing reference to Section 217 of the Companies Act nor any reference to the Petitioners (original Accused) in these documents sought to be relied upon by the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, Mr. Chodankar.
9. Lastly, he would submit that taking the documents issued by the Registrar of Companies dated 01.05.2012, 19.02.2014 and 24.03.2014, relied upon by Mr. Chodankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, these documents neither reveal any application of mind nor demonstrate any request for sanction or even reflect the names of the Petitioners (original Accused).
10. Arguments concluded.
11. List the matter on 20.04.2026, only to enable Mr. Chodankar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel to file synopsis of submissions.
12. It is clarified that no submissions or written pleadings to be filed by any of the parties thereafter.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.