9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of provisions of section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956; Exemption from filing returns due to circumstances beyond control; Relief under section 633 of the Companies Act, 1956; Prosecution barred by limitation. Analysis: The revision cases involved complaints under section 159/162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, regarding alleged violations of section 159. The petitioners sought to quash the prosecutions, claiming errors by the Magistrates in taking cognizance without examining the complainant or witnesses. They argued for exemption from filing returns due to circumstances beyond their control, relief under section 633, and limitation on prosecution. The court noted that the obligation to examine complainants is waived for complaints by public servants. The court declined to delve into the merits of the prosecution and potential defenses at the revision stage. Regarding the limitation issue, the court analyzed sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act. The petitioners argued that the offenses were time-barred due to the penalty being a fine only, with a six-month limitation under section 468 of the Cr. P.C. The respondents contended that the offenses were continuing offenses, citing the provision in section 162 for daily fines during default. The court examined precedents to determine the nature of continuing offenses, emphasizing the distinction between offenses complete upon initial default and those that continue day by day. The court reviewed relevant cases, including G. D. Bhattar v. State and State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, to assess the concept of continuing offenses under different statutes. It highlighted the requirement for an offense to arise from a failure to obey a rule with a liability that continues until compliance. The court disagreed with the view that the offenses under section 159/162 of the Companies Act constituted continuing offenses, as the obligation to file returns was not ongoing, and the penalty provision aimed to ensure compliance without rendering the initial default a continuing offense. In conclusion, the court disagreed with a previous decision and held that the offenses under section 159/162 of the Companies Act were not continuing offenses. It found that the cognizance of the cases was invalid due to the bar of limitation under section 468 of the Cr. P.C., leading to the quashing of the pending proceedings. The court made the rules absolute, with both judges concurring on the decision.
|
