9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of limitation in filing complaints u/s 205-A of the Companies Act 1956, specifically regarding whether the offense is a continuing one or not. Details of the Judgment: 1. The undisputed facts establish that complaints filed beyond 6 months from the date of actionable knowledge are barred by limitation. 2. The complaint alleged violation of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 205-A of the Companies Act, filed after 6 months from the completion of the offense and even after the Registrar of Companies had knowledge. 3. The debate centered around whether the offense, punishable with a fine, is a continuing one or not, affecting the limitation period. 4. Sub-section (8) of Section 205-A of the Companies Act specifies the punishment for non-compliance, indicating a daily fine for the duration of the failure. 5. The distinction between offenses committed once and continuing offenses was highlighted, emphasizing the element of continuance in the latter. 6. The Supreme Court's interpretation of continuing offenses was referenced, emphasizing the need for ongoing disobedience for such offenses. 7. Previous legal interpretations regarding offenses under different sections of the Companies Act were discussed to provide context. 8. The judgment compared the language of Section 162 of the Companies Act with Section 205-A, noting the similarity in provisions with a slight difference in terminology. 9. The offense under Section 162 involves a failure to submit a return, with a penalty for each day of default. 10. The judgment analyzed the language of the relevant sections to determine the nature of the offense and its implications on limitation. 11. The decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was cited, emphasizing that the offense is complete upon the initial default and not a continuing one. 12. The Calcutta High Court's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision further supported the conclusion that the offense under Section 205-A is not a continuing one. 13. Following the legal precedents, the Court held that the offense under Section 205-A is not a continuing offense, leading to the complaint being barred by limitation. 14. The Court noted the absence of condonation of delay by the Magistrate and quashed the complaint against the petitioner. 15. A submission regarding the commencement of limitation from the Regional Director's permission was dismissed, reiterating that it starts with actionable knowledge. 16. The inspections and reports available with the Regional Director established the timeline for actionable knowledge in this case. 17. The complaints were filed significantly after the actionable knowledge was gained, leading to the limitation issue. 18. The petitions were disposed of, quashing the complaint and summoning order, with no costs imposed.
|
