1980 (12) TMI 154 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the petitions for quashing proceedings under section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, are valid due to being filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. Whether an Assistant Registrar of Companies can be considered a person aggrieved by the offence under section 469(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis:
1. The revision cases involved applications under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code seeking to quash proceedings under section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The contention was that cognizance was wrongly taken due to petitions being filed beyond the limitation period. The Magistrates ruled against the petitioners, stating that in one case, the offence was considered a continuing offence, making section 468 of the Code inapplicable, while in the other case, the complaint was filed within the limitation period. The petitioners challenged these orders before the High Court.

2. The main argument raised by the petitioners was that the Assistant Registrar of Companies, who filed the complaints, cannot be considered a person aggrieved by the offence under section 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC. The petitioners contended that the Asst. Registrar could not claim personal grief due to the alleged offence, which involved the non-placement of balance sheets and P & L accounts at a company's annual general meeting. They cited a Madras decision to support their argument, emphasizing that complaints filed in discharge of official duty should not be equated with those filed by personally aggrieved individuals.

3. However, the opposite party argued that the Registrar of Companies, including Assistant Registrars, plays a crucial role in overseeing company affairs and ensuring compliance with the Companies Act. Violations of statutory obligations can constitute an offence, and it is the Registrar of Companies who assesses such situations. Therefore, the Registrar and Assistant Registrar are deemed persons aggrieved by the offence under section 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC. The High Court agreed with this argument, stating that Assistant Registrars are entitled to benefit from the provisions of the Code.

4. The High Court referred to section 621 of the Companies Act, which specifies that complaints for offences under the Act can only be filed by the Registrar, a shareholder, or a person authorized by the Central Government. Based on this provision, it was concluded that only shareholders of the company can be aggrieved by offences under the Companies Act. Despite the petitioners' reliance on a Madras decision, the High Court upheld the view that Assistant Registrars of Companies are indeed persons aggrieved by such offences and can utilize the provisions of the Code.

5. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the applications and directed the Magistrates to proceed with the cases as per the law. The judges unanimously agreed on this decision, emphasizing the role of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Companies as aggrieved parties entitled to seek legal recourse under the relevant provisions.