9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the offence of not filing returns under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is a continuing offence. 2. Whether the complaints were filed within the limitation period as prescribed by Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the offence of not filing returns under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is a continuing offence: The court examined Rule 10, which mandates every company to file a return by June 30 of each year, and Rule 11, which prescribes penalties for non-compliance. The primary contention was whether the failure to file returns constitutes a continuing offence. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the offence is committed once for all by June 30 each year and is not a continuing offence, citing the Supreme Court decision in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR 1973 SC 908. The Supreme Court in that case distinguished between offences committed once and for all and continuing offences, stating that a continuing offence involves a failure to comply with a rule, with liability continuing until compliance. The court also referenced Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1688, where the Supreme Court held that non-payment of Provident Fund contributions was a continuing offence due to the nature of the contravention. However, the court found that the non-filing of returns under Rule 10 is distinct from such cases. Rule 10 requires returns to be filed by June 30 each year, and failure to do so completes the offence. The court concluded that the offence under Rule 10 is not continuing, as the obligation to file the return does not persist beyond the due date. 2. Whether the complaints were filed within the limitation period as prescribed by Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code: Section 468(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes a limitation period of six months for offences punishable with fine only. The court noted that the offence of not filing returns is punishable with a fine under Rule 11. The period of limitation, therefore, commences from the date of the offence, i.e., June 30 of each year. In these cases, the complaints were filed after the expiry of six months from the due date. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel argued that non-compliance with Rule 10 undermines its purpose, but the court held that it is the responsibility of the rule-making authorities to address such issues. The court cannot extend the limitation period beyond what is prescribed by law. Conclusion: The court found that the offence of not filing returns under Rule 10 is not a continuing offence and that the complaints were time-barred as they were filed beyond the six-month limitation period. Consequently, the convictions and sentences imposed on the accused were set aside, and all the revisions were allowed, resulting in the acquittal of the accused in all cases.
|
