9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1961; Dismissal of complaints as barred by limitation; Whether offences under sections 159 and 220 are continuing offences. Analysis: The judgment pertains to multiple revisions against a common order dated 18-10-1985, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-I), Madras. The revision petitioner, the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, filed 32 complaints against various companies for alleged violations of sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1961. The complaints were filed after the prescribed six-month period under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Magistrate dismissed the complaints as time-barred, citing the limitation period. The complainant contended that the violations were continuing offences and not subject to limitation. The Magistrate's order of dismissal under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure meant no notice was required to the accused at that stage. The judgment referenced several cases, including S. Thiyagarajan v. Ayyamperumal, Chandra Deo Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose, Fella Pandi v. Annathai Ammal, and Jalaludeen v. Syed Ibrahim, holding that in cases of dismissal under section 203, the accused need not be given notice. The court dispensed with notice to the respondents in the revision petitions based on this legal principle. The judgment highlighted conflicting views on whether offences under sections 159 and 220 are continuing offences. It cited judgments like Kalaimagal Corpn. Ltd, Dhanalakshmi Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd., and Cr. M.P. Nos. 7417 and 7419 of 1986, which uniformly held these offences as continuing offences, not subject to limitation. In light of the settled legal position that the mentioned offences are continuing in nature, the court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases to the trial court for further action. Despite initial notices to the respondents, the court dispensed with notice based on the legal principle that accused individuals do not require notice in such circumstances. The judgment concluded by allowing the revisions, directing the complaints to be taken on file, and process to be issued to the accused, granting them the opportunity to present their defenses in accordance with the law. This comprehensive judgment addresses issues of limitation, continuing offences under the Companies Act, and the procedural aspects of notice to accused individuals in cases of dismissal under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legal analysis provided a thorough examination of relevant case law and legal principles to arrive at a decision that upholds the concept of continuing offences and ensures procedural fairness in the legal process.
|
