9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings based on the bar of limitation. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the application filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of complaints initiated by the Registrar of Companies for non-compliance with the Companies Act. The complaints were based on the failure to file annual returns within the stipulated time frames, as required by various sections of the Companies Act, including sections 159, 160, 161, and 220(1). The petitioner primarily argued for the quashing of the proceedings based on the bar of limitation, as per section 468 of the Cr. PC, which sets a six-month period from the date of accrual of the right to prosecute. The complaints were filed beyond this statutory limitation period, leading to the central issue of whether the offences were continuing in nature. The Registrar of Companies contended that the offences under the Companies Act were continuing offences, emphasizing the language used in section 161(1) regarding the "continuance of default" and the prescribed fine for each day of default under section 162(1). On the other hand, the petitioner argued that the offences under section 162(1) were not continuing in nature and, therefore, the complaints filed after the limitation period should not be entertained. The interpretation of what constitutes a continuing offence was crucial in determining the applicability of the limitation period in this case. The judgment delves into the concept of continuing offences as elucidated by the Supreme Court in the State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi case, distinguishing between offences committed once and for all versus those that involve a failure to comply with ongoing requirements. The Division Bench of the High Court, in previous cases such as Wire Machinery Manufacturing Corporation Ltd v. State and National Cotton Mills v. Assistant Registrar of Companies, provided insights on the interpretation of continuing offences under the Companies Act. These cases highlighted that the initial default leading to penalties for each day of non-compliance does not necessarily transform the offence into a continuing one, emphasizing the absence of a requirement for ongoing non-compliance or disobedience. Moreover, the judgment addressed an unreported decision related to section 372(8) of the Companies Act, which explicitly stated the penalty extension for each day of default continuation. However, the court differentiated this provision from section 162(1) and concluded that the latter did not exhibit similar characteristics of a continuing offence. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the offences under section 162(1) were not continuing offences and as the complaints were filed beyond the limitation period, they were barred by law. Consequently, the court made the rule absolute, quashing the criminal cases before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, Calcutta, with no order as to costs.
|
