9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return in terms of the provisions of rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. It was stated that under the provisions of the said Rules, they were required to file the return on or before 30th June, every year, with the complainant in prescribed forms furnishing the information contained therein. This failure to submit the return is punishable under rule 11 of the said Rules. Rule 11 provides that if a company or any other person contravenes any of the provisions of these rules, the company and other officer of the company who was in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 and if the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , a prosecution was lodged against the petitioners under section 162 of the Companies Act for violation of the provisions of section 159 of the said Act. In terms of the provisions of section 159, the due date for filing of the returns was 28th November of different years. All the complaints were filed beyond the period of limitation which was six months in that case. In the revisional application for quashing the proceedings, it was contended that the cognizance was bad because it was barred by limitation. The complainant contended that the offence was a continuing one and, therefore, not barred by limitation. The court held that section 159 of the Companies Act does not impose any liability which continues. The offence of the breach is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 1688. In that case, the court held that nonpayment of the employer's contribution to the provident fund before the due date is a continuing offence and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribed by section 468, Criminal Procedure Code, cannot have any application. The offence is governed by section 472, according to which, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the offence continues. It laid down the principle that the question whether a particular offence is a continuing offence must necessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates the offence, the nature of the offence and, above all, the purpose which is intended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment or fine up to a limit but fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for every day during which the default continues. The section makes it clear that the default or offence is not something which takes place once and for all but is one which continues. In arriving at this conclusion, the court considered the scheme of the provisions as contained in the Companies Act and concluded that the offence punishable under section 162 of the Act is a continuing offence. Against this decision of the Kerala High Court, the Supreme Court was moved and the special leave to appeal was dismissed. Accordingly, Mr. Ghoshal contended that the Supreme Court has accepted the views of the Kerala High Court that the offence punishable under section 162 of the Companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specify which of the provisions of those rules will be penalised by day-to-day fine. It only states that where the contravention is continuing, then a day-to-day fine shall be imposed. So, contravention of which rules constitutes a continuing offence has to be decided independent of the penal provision of rule 11. In this sense, the provision of rule 11 is not identical with the provisions of section 162 of the Companies Act. Let us now see whether the requirement of section 10 is of a continuing nature. The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 58A of the Companies Act. Section 58A of the Companies Act provides that the Central Government may, in consultation with the Rese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rule 10 continues even after the expiry of 30th day of June of each year. Accordingly, I hold that the offence arising out of non-compliance of rule 10 is a continuing offence and the instant proceedings are not barred by limitation. Mr. Bose also contended that the petition of complaint does not disclose how the provisions of section 58A of the Companies Act have been violated. It is clear from the petition of complaint that the Rules framed under the authority of section 58A have been violated by not filing the return as required under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. Therefore, I do not find any strength in this submission. As a result, this application fails and is rejected. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
