9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of complainant Bhoolan Singh was not recorded because he has not been submitted as a witness by the prosecution but a bare perusal of section 200 Cr. P.C. would clearly reveal that there is no need of the complainant to appear before the Court if any person authorized by him appears on his behalf. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant Union of India is allowed and the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 9-8-2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offence) Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 137/2002, is quashed and set aside and a fine amounting to ₹ 5,000 is imposed upon the accused respondents for committing the offence punishable under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 - CRL. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company failed to submit the balance-sheet and profit and loss account in accordance with law before the Registrar of Companies. Although default notices were issued and served upon the accused persons but still they failed to submit the return and thus, committed default in terms of the provisions of section 220(3) of the Act and thus, made themselves liable for prosecution and punishment under the provisions of section 220(3) of the Act. It was also averred that pending decision upon the complaint, the accused persons be directed to submit annual return in accordance with the provisions of sections 614A and 611(2) of the Act. Cost of the proceedings were also demanded along with the request that the offence made out against the accused pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the complaint against the accused persons for the offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. 10. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards certain judgments: A. Sugga Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. v. State [1990] 68 Comp. Cas. 625 (Delhi), wherein it has been held as under : " Offence-Limitation for filing complaint. Failure to file return and balance-sheet and profit and loss account of company within prescribed time-continuing offences Fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment while offence continues/Complaint filed beyond period of six months after expiry of prescribed time not barred by limitation Companies Act, 1956, sections 159, 162, 220 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 sections 468, 472." B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. He further urged to the Court that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that P.W. 1 Shiv Prakash Rawat is not an authorized person, as the complainant Bhoolan Singh was fully authorized and empowered to file the complaint. After filing of the complaint, statement of P.W. 1 Shiv Prakash Rawat under sections 200 and 202, Cr. PC. was recorded in which he stated that he is working in the office of RoC, Jaipur on the post of Sr. LDC and also look after the work of legal cell. This witness in his statement has specifically stated that it is not necessary to examine the complainant Mr. Bhoolan Singh, who has filed the complaint. 12. He has also drawn attention of the Court towards section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding : Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made : ( a )where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session: or ( b )where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any), have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath; Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all the witnesses and examine them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al available on record including the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the Union of India. 16. A bare perusal and scrutiny of impugned judgment dated 9-8-2002 passed by trial Court it is clear that the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has decided two points; firstly, that the complaint has been filed by the authorized person under section 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and secondly, that offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act is a continuous offence and is not hit by provisions of section 468 Cr. P.C. but the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has held that PW-1 Shiv Prakash Rawat is not an authorized person. The statement of complainant Bhoolan Singh was not recorded because he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
