9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of criminal prosecution in Special Case No. 799 (M)/84. 2. Allegation of non-compliance with section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. Barred prosecution under section 468(2) Cr. P.C. 4. Application for dropping the proceeding under section 468(1) Cr. P.C. 5. Continuing offence under sections 159 and 220(1) of the Companies Act. 6. Interpretation of sections 162(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act. 7. Application of section 468(1) Cr. P.C. in the present case. 8. Previous legal precedents on continuing offences and limitation issues. Analysis: The judgment involved a petition seeking to quash criminal prosecution in Special Case No. 799 (M)/84, where the petitioners, a Private Limited Company and its directors, were accused of non-compliance with section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The case was initiated by the Registrar of Companies, alleging failure to file the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the prescribed timeframe, constituting an offence under section 220(1) of the Act. The petitioners contended that the complaint was time-barred under section 468(2) Cr. P.C., as the prosecution was initiated more than two years after the alleged offence. The petitioners further argued that the offence was not a continuing one and thus subject to limitation under section 468 Cr. P.C. However, the Registrar of Companies asserted that the non-compliance constituted a continuing offence under section 162(1) of the Companies Act, punishable with a fine for each day of default. The petitioners challenged the order refusing to drop the proceeding under section 468(1) Cr. P.C., citing multiple cases registered beyond the limitation period without condonation of delay. The High Court examined the provisions of sections 162(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act to determine the nature of the offence and its continuity. Referring to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in various cases, the Court established that the default in filing the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the statutory period constituted a continuing offence. The Court also highlighted a Full Bench decision affirming that failure to comply with specific provisions could be considered a continuing offence, overriding limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the application, emphasizing that the question of limitation was raised belatedly during the trial, indicating an attempt to delay proceedings. It reiterated the stance that offences like the one in question were continuing in nature, thus not subject to the limitations prescribed under section 468(1) Cr. P.C. The judgment underscored the importance of addressing limitation issues at the outset of proceedings and upheld the decision of the court below in rejecting the plea based on the nature of the offence and legal precedents on continuing offences and limitation challenges.
|
