2008 (7) TMI 590 - HC - Companies Law

Judgment of acquittal challenged - Held that - A bare perusal and scrutiny of impugned judgment dated 9-8-2002 passed by trial Court it is clear that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has decided two points; firstly, that the complaint has been filed by the authorized person under section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and secondly, that offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act is a continuous offence and is not hit by provisions of section 468 Cr. P.C. but the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has held that PW-1 Shiv Prakash Rawat is not an authorized person. The statement of complainant Bhoolan Singh was not recorded because he has not been submitted as a witness by the prosecution but a bare perusal of section 200 Cr. P.C. would clearly reveal that there is no need of the complainant to appear before the Court if any person authorized by him appears on his behalf. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Union of India is allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 9-8-2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offence) Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 137/2002, is quashed and set aside and a fine amounting to ₹ 5,000 is imposed upon the accused respondents for committing the offence punishable under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956

Summary

Issues:
Acquittal under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The criminal appeal was filed by the appellant-Union of India against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) in a case involving the accused respondents for an offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint alleged that the accused Company failed to submit the balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the financial year 1999-2000 within the stipulated time frame, despite receiving default notices. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence, recorded statements of witnesses, and eventually acquitted the accused respondents.

The appellant contended that the trial Court misinterpreted the evidence and failed to recognize the continuous nature of the offence under section 220(3) of the Act. Referring to relevant case laws, the appellant argued that the offence of failing to file required documents within the prescribed time is a continuing offence, not barred by the limitation period specified in the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant emphasized the importance of the complaint filed by the authorized person and highlighted the legal provisions regarding examination of the complainant under sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P.C.

In response, the counsel for the accused respondents argued that the complaint was barred by section 468 of the Cr. P.C. as proper procedures were not followed, including the absence of the complainant's authorization letter and failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination. The defense contended that the complaint lacked essential details and did not adhere to the requirements of sections 200 and 203 of the Cr. P.C.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court found that the trial Court had erred in its decision regarding the authorization of the complainant and the nature of the offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act. The Court held that the offence was indeed a continuous one and not barred by the limitation period. It was emphasized that the presence of the complainant was not mandatory under section 200 of the Cr. P.C. if an authorized representative appeared on their behalf.

Consequently, the criminal appeal was allowed, and the judgment of acquittal was set aside. A fine of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the accused respondents for the offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, to ensure compliance. The accused respondents were directed to deposit the fine within two months, with further legal action specified in case of non-compliance.

In conclusion, the Court's decision clarified the legal aspects of the case, emphasizing the continuous nature of the offence and the procedural requirements under the relevant laws.