9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determination of whether the complaint case was barred by limitation. Analysis: The revisional application involved the accused petitioners, a Company and its Directors, seeking to quash the proceeding of Case No. C/307 of 1982 filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies under Section 220(3) read with Section 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint alleged that the Company failed to hold the Annual General Meeting and file the balance sheet and profit and loss account as required by law. The main issue raised was whether the complaint was barred by limitation. The relevant statutory provisions under Section 220(1) of the Companies Act state that the balance sheet and profit and loss account must be filed within a specified time frame, with default subject to punishment under Section 162 of the Act. The key contention was whether the offense constituted a continuing offense, as described in Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which would affect the limitation period for filing the complaint. The determination of whether the offense was a continuing offense hinged on interpreting the phrase "continuing offense." Reference was made to the decision in Bhagirath Kanoria & ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, which laid down principles for identifying continuing offenses. The court emphasized that the nature of the offense, the statutory language, and the intended purpose of the law must be considered. It was clarified that offenses like failure to pay contributions under specific acts could be deemed continuing offenses due to their nature and objectives. In this case, the court concluded that the offense under Section 220(1) of the Act was not a continuing offense. The failure to furnish the required documents constituted a complete offense, and the Act did not specify ongoing non-compliance as an offense. The court highlighted that the Act's purpose was to ensure timely submission of financial documents, not to penalize ongoing business operations without filing returns. As such, the offense was deemed to have been committed once the deadline passed. Ultimately, the court held that since the offense was not continuing and was completed on a specific date, the complaint filed beyond the limitation period was barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provisions of Section 473, which allow for taking cognizance after the limitation period in the interest of justice, were found inapplicable in this case. Consequently, the revisional application was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the proceedings were quashed.
|
