9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eet and the profit and loss account for the periods ending April 30, 1980, and July 31, 1980, before November 30, 1980, and March 2, 1981, respectively. The company, however, did not file the balance-sheets and, therefore, the Registrar filed two complaints before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, against the company and its directors alleging the commission of offences punishable under section 220(3) of the Act. The accused filed petitions before the trial court in Crl. M.P. Nos. 890 of 1983 and 894 of 1983, respectively, praying for dismissal of the complaints and acquittal of the accused on the ground that the complaints are barred by limitation and the court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The trial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is provided by section 162 for a default in complying with the provisions of section 159, 160 or 161. Sections 159 and 160 deal with preparation and filing with the Registrar of returns containing the particulars as stated therein, in the case of companies having share capital and companies not having a share capital respectively. The returns are to be filed within sixty days from the day on which each of the annual general body meetings referred to in section 166 is held. Section 161 contains further provisions regarding the annual return and certificate to be annexed thereto. Sub-section (1) of section 162 deals with penalty. If a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in section 159 or 160 or 161, the company, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o run at every moment of time during which the offence continues. In these two cases, the balance-sheets were required to be filed at the latest on November 30, 1980, and March 2, 1981, respectively. The complaints were filed more than six months thereafter. Obviously, the complaints were filed long after the expiry of six months from the last dates on which the balance-sheets were required to be filed, these dates being the dates of offences. The Registrar of Companies contends that the offences alleged in these cases are continuing offences and, therefore, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the offences continue and, hence, there is no bar of limitation. The accused denies that the offences a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a High Court held that the offence involved was a continuing offence and the bar of limitation did not apply. I am also referred to a decision in Provident Fund Inspector v. Parvathi Mills Ltd. [1980] KLT 272. The case dealt with a complaint for violation of certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. The accused were required to make payment to the fund of contributions for every month within the 15th day of the following month. In connection with the plea of limitation, the question arose whether the offence is a continuing offence. Balagangadharan Nair J. referred to the decisions in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR 1973 SC 908, W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues and, therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all." (p. 909) In these cases, we are construing the provisions of the Companies Act. The judicial decisions in regard to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence involved is a continuing offence. It appears to me on a comparison of the provisions of the various Acts dealt with in these decisions that there is a vital difference between the relevant provisions of the Companies Act and the other Acts. If this offence under the Companies Act is not a continuing offence but an offence which takes place once and for all, then the provision for punishment would have been imprisonment or fine up to a particular limit irrespective of other considerations. The punishment provided in section 162 is not imprisonment or fine up to a limit but fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for every day during which the default continues. Such a provision is absent in the statutes dealt with in most of the above d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
