9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 892X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the said proceedings in E.O.C.C. No. 177 of 1998. 2. Whether the offence under section 207 has been taken cognizance of validly by the Trial Court before the expiry of the period of limitation ?. This is the main question posed before this court in these petitions. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, through Iggi. Resorts International Ltd., the subject company, declared a dividend of 25 per cent at its annual general meeting held on 25-9-1996, it did not pay the dividend amount on or before 5-11-1996, i.e., within 42 days from the date of declaration of the dividend and the said non-payment would amount to an offence under section 207 and is liable to be punished with imprisonment for seven days with fine and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly a party to the default, be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven days and shall also be liable to fine:" Under this section, the offence would be complete after the expiry of forty-two days, if the dividend declared by a company has not been paid to the shareholder and the said offence is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven days and shall also be liable to fine. 6. The counsel on either side would concede that limitation for initiation of proceedings for offences under the Act has not been prescribed under the Act itself, and, hence, the general law under the Code will stand attracted. Since the offence alleged is punishable with imprisonment and fine, it is eviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned with the commencement of the period of limitation in the instant case. The present complaint has been filed not on the basis of the date on which offence was committed, but on the basis of the date on which offence came to be known by the person aggrieved. 8. Let us now refer to section 621 of the Act. Section 621 reads thus : "621. Offences against Act to be cognizable only on complaint by Registrar, shareholder or Government.-(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act (other than an offence with respect to which proceedings are instituted under section 545), which is alleged to have been committed by any company or any officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of the Registrar, or of a shareholde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of section 469(1)(b) and as such, he is competent to initiate prosecution by invoking the benefit under section 469(1)(b). 12. Therefore, the wording 'whichever is earlier' would not mean the date of knowledge as between the shareholder and the Registrar of Compa- nies. It is a comparison only between the aggrieved person and the police officer with reference to the dates of knowledge in order to find out which date is earlier and that meaning cannot be conveyed to be the date of knowledge between the shareholder and the Registrar of Companies. In this case, it has to be taken that the date of knowledge of the offence by the Registrar of Companies who filed the complaint, is the date of commencement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear from the date of receipt of the first complaint. In view of the said submission and in view of the averment made in the complaint, there is no difficulty in holding that the 'person aggrieved' as referred to in section 469(1)(b), namely, the Registrar of Companies, the complainant came to know of the offence on 30-6-1997. The next question would arise as to the date of cognizance. 15. According to the counsel for the respondent, the complaint was filed on 15-6-1998. This Court called for the records. It is seen from the first page of the complaint that the complaint was presented on 15-6-1998, and the seal was affixed on the date. But unfortunately, on noticing some irregularities in the complaint, it was returned for compliance on 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before the Court on 14-10-1998. 17. Section 468 would provide the caption 'bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation'. Under this section, the Court shall not take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. In the instant case, the period of limitation is one year from the date of knowledge of the person aggrieved. Admittedly, in this case, cognizance was taken only after the expiry of the period of limitation. It is true that the period of limitation can be extended in certain cases as provided in section 473 of the Code. But, the condition for invoking section 473 is that the Court must be satisfied that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
