9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substance of the averments made in all the complaints are: That the petitioner is the Managing Director of the first accused company viz., M/s. Gangappa Paper Mills Limited, Chennai-21. As per Section 220 of the Companies Act, the first accused company and its Directors are under statutory obligation to file with the respondent herein/complainant, three copies of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in the prescribed format within 30 days of placing the same in the Annual General Body Meeting and in case no Annual General Body Meeting was held, within 30 days of the due date of the said meeting. It is further averred in the complaint that the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account pertaining to the first accused company for the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as in the year 1987 and hence the question of filing Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account do not arise for consideration. 4. Heard the submissions of Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in each of Criminal Original Petitions and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily placed reliance upon the following decisions to substantiate his contention. 1. (Volume 97) Company Cases 500-NEPC India Limited and Ors. v. The Registrar of Companies. 2. 2001 2 L.W. (Crl.) 656 - V. Karthikeyan, T.L. Pragasam v. The Registrar of Companies. 3. 2007 2 L.W. (Crl.) 606 - N. Kumar v. M.O. Roy, Assistant Director, Serious Fraud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eyan, T.L. Pragasam v. The Registrar of Companies, again the question of non payment of dividend within a period stipulated under the Companies Act and the consequent launch of prosecution was the subject matter of petition for quash and this Court found that the complaint is barred by limitation and therefore the cognizance on account of the time barred complaint is to be quashed and accordingly quashed it. 9. In 2007 2 L.W. (Crl.) 606 - N. Kumar v. M.O. Roy, Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, Paravarna Bhavan, New Delhi, this Court after taking into consideration the NEPC case 1999 97 Comp Cas 500 - V. Karthikeyan and Anr. v. The Registrar of Companies 2001(2) L.W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing for the respondent, the bar of limitation contemplated under Section 469 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in respect of the prosecution launched against the petitioner. 13. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel also drawn attention of the Court to the judgment reported in AIR 1958 (SC) 908 - State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Anr. wherein the distinction between offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all and continuing offence, has been stated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision has held as follows: 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) they shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 50/- for every day during which default continues. 16. The same question came for consideration before this Court and this Court in the judgment reported in 1997(1)CTC382 - Assistant Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu v. Premier Synthetics Private Limited and two Ors. held as follows: In these cases under consideration, some of the complaints relate to violation of Section 159 of the Companies Act and some of the cases relate to violation of 220 of the Companies Act. The violation under Section 220 of the Companies Act is made punishable in Section 162 of the Companies Act. The violation of Section 159 of the Companies Act is also made punishable under Section 162 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case and remand the matter back to the trial Court for further action in accordance with law. 17. In view of the said categorical pronouncement coupled with the averments made in the complaint, this Court is of the view that since the offence alleged against the petitioners is a continuing one, it is not barred by limitation and the cognizance taken by the trial Court is valid and sustainable. 18. With regard to the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that even prior to the launching of the prosecution, the first accused company has been ordered to be wound up and a Receiver was also appointed by the High Court of Bombay in a suit filed by IDBI, it involves adjudication on facts and this Court at this s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
