9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and illegal. A letter dated 24.02.2004 was issued by the ROC to the company to inquire about its affairs. This was duly replied vide letter dated 15.04.2004. The reply was examined and thereafter an order dated 19.04.2004 under section 234(1) of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to the "Act") was issued to the company which remained unresponded. Thereafter another order dated 16.06.2004 u/s 234 (3A) of the Act was issued by ROC requesting the Company to furnish the desired information, but no response was received. As no response was received qua the aforesaid two orders, a show cause notice dated 26.07.2005 was issued to the company u/s 234 (4)(a) of the Act which also did not evoke any response. Thereafter a report was sent by ROC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the letter dated 24.2.2004 of ROC would amount to intimation to the Company and their response thereto vide letter dated 15.4.2004 would indicate that they had the knowledge about the alleged offence. With regard to the plea regarding limitation, it was submitted by learned counsel for ROC that the offence being continuous, the bar of limitation was not applicable under Section 469 Cr.PC. It was submitted that in any case, the complaint was filed within six months of the approval of Central Government and so there was no delay on the part of Department. The learned counsel relied upon Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 1688 Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1988) 4 SCC 36, H.C. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners, it is seen that ROC issued a letter dated 24.2.2004 to the company to enquire about its affairs. The same was replied by the company vide letter dated 15.4.2004. 8. It is submitted that three orders dated 19.04.2004, 16.06.2004 and 26.07.2005 under Section 234 (1), 234 (3A) and 234 (4) (a) of the Act respectively were issued by the ROC to the petitioner company, but these evoked no response. However, from the perusal of the record, it can be seen that there is no evidence which was brought by the respondent to prima facie prove the service of such orders on the petitioner company. The receipt of such statutory orders is a sine-qua-non for alleging non-compliance of the orders of the respondent. Reply to the letter by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commences when the knowledge of the commission of offence is gained by the prosecuting agency. Furthermore, there was no application on record advanced by the respondent for the condonation of delay in the Trial Court. 10. A distinction has been drawn between offences which take place when an act or omission is committed once for all and a continuing offence in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi 1973 Cri L J 1347 In para 5 of the judgment it was opined as under: "5. Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
