9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashing of proceedings under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 initiated by complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two Rules seeking to quash proceedings under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The complaints were filed against a limited company and its Directors for failing to submit statutory returns as required by the Act. The petitioners contended that the complainant lacked proper authorization and that the cognizance was time-barred. The complainant's authority to file complaints was established through a Gazette notification empowering officers to file complaints under Section 58E of the Act. The Court rejected the argument that the authority was limited to offenses committed before the notification date. The judgment emphasized the broad interpretation of "generally authorized" under Section 58E, allowing for complaints regarding past or future offenses. Regarding the second contention, the issue of whether the offense under Section 58B(2) was a continuing one was discussed. The provision stipulates fines for failure to produce documents or information, with additional fines for persistent non-compliance. The Court referenced a Supreme Court decision on continuing offenses under the Mines Act to determine the nature of the offense under Section 58B(2). It concluded that the offense was indeed a continuing one, as indicated by the provision for additional fines for each day of non-compliance. This interpretation distinguished the offense as ongoing until the required action was taken. The judgment highlighted the specific language of Section 58B(2) as evidence of the offense's continuing nature, ultimately rejecting the argument that the offense was not continuous. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the applications to quash the proceedings, ruling that the Rules were discharged. The judgment clarified the authorized filing of complaints by the Bank's officers and affirmed the continuing nature of the offense under Section 58B(2), leading to the rejection of the petitioners' contentions.
|
