1979 (10) TMI 145 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition to quash criminal proceedings under sections 58A(4) and 58A(5) of the Companies Act.
2. Interpretation of "renewal" of deposits as receiving fresh deposits.
3. Prosecution's contention on limitation period.
4. Exemption under section 58A(8) of the Act.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under sections 58A(4) and 58A(5) of the Companies Act. The petitioners argued that no fresh deposits were received, only old deposits were renewed, and the prosecution was time-barred. However, the court found that the renewal of deposits constituted receiving fresh deposits, making the petitioners guilty of an offence under section 58A(4) punishable under section 58A(5)(b) of the Act. The court also ruled that the prosecution was not barred by limitation, as the renewal of deposits constituted a fresh offence. The court emphasized the gravity of the offence and expressed hope for an adequate sentence upon conviction. The petitioners' attempt to seek exemption under section 58A(8) of the Act was rejected, with the court noting that the petition was filed solely to delay proceedings.

The court highlighted that the petition was frivolous and vexatious, aimed at protracting the trial. The court dismissed the petition, directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and ordered the petitioners to pay the costs of the Government counsel. The judgment underscores the importance of deciding such matters on their merits and not allowing the legal system to be misused for dilatory tactics. The ruling serves as a reminder that courts will not tolerate attempts to delay justice through unfounded petitions and reiterated the obligation of companies and their officers to comply with the provisions of the Companies Act.