9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the other three accused persons are its Directors and are responsible for all the acts and affairs of the business and accounts of the company. In exercise of its powers under Sections 45J and 45K of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued certain directions to Non-Banking institutions, receiving deposits, to control and regulate different activities of such institutions as contained in the Bank's Notification No. DNBC. 21/DG(S)-73 dated August 23, 1973. In terms of paragraph 11 of the said directions, the petitioner company, as a Non-Banking institution receiving deposits, is bound to submit to the Bank its statutory return furnishing the information specifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such the cognisance was legal and valid. It was next submitted that the offence under Section 58B(2) was a continuing one and in view of the provisions of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the cognisance was not barred by limitation. 5. To answer the first point raised by the petitioners it will be necessary to refer to Section 58E(1) of the Act which reads as follows;- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer of the Bank, generally or specially authorised in writing in this behalf by the Bank, and no court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a court superior thereto shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be made under the Act the Governor of the Bank himself has to be satisfied about its contents and only on such satisfaction he has to give a special authorisation to one of the officers mentioned in the notification to file complaint. In support of his contention Mr. Sarkar relied upon the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Gokulchand Dwarkadas v. The King reported in AIR 1948 PC 82. 7. In view of the plain language of Section 58E of the Act and the notification in question I find no merit in the contention of Mr. Sarkar. Section 58E empowers the Bank to generally or specially authorise an officer of the Bank to file a complaint. The notification unmistakably shows that the officers of the rank of the complainant have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imitation. Referring to Section 58B(2), which reads as follows: If any person fails to produce any book, account or other document or to furnish any statement information or particulars which, under this Act or any order, regulation or direction made or given thereunder, it is his duty to produce or furnish or to answer any question put to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or of any order, regulation or direction made or given thereunder, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees in respect of each offence and if he persists in such failure or refusal, with further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day, after the first during which the offence continues. Mr. Roy Chou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at no Court shall take cognisance of any offence under that Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or within six months from the date from which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the inspector whichever is later, and the explanation thereto provides that if the offence in question is a continuing one the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. In deciding whether the offence under Section 66 was covered by the substantive part of Section 79 or by the exception thereto the Court observed as follows: Continuing offence is one which is suscepti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h return on or before January 21 of succeeding year. The infringement, therefore, occurs on January 21 of the relevant year and is complete on the owner failing to furnish the annual returns by that day. The Regulation does not lay down that the owner, manager etc. of the mine concerned would be guilty of an offence if he continues to carry on the mine without furnishing the returns or that the offence continues until the requirement of Regn. 3 is complied with. In other words Regn. 3 does not render a continued disobedience or non-compliance of it an offence. As in the case of a construction of a wall in violation of a rule or a bye-law of a local body the offence would be complete once and for all as soon as such construction is made a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
