9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation for the offence punishable with a fine is only six months. In the decision of Kavi Arora [ 2015 (9) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it has been decided that , The offences in the present case are not continuing in nature, limitation commenced as per Section 469(1)(b) Cr.P.C. when actionable knowledge was gained by the competent authority i.e. when the Registrar of Companies had knowledge of the commission of the alleged offences, i.e. 24th June, 2013 when the Registrar of Companies received the report of the Inspector and ran out on 23rd June, 2014 and thus the complaint, which was admittedly filed on 18th September, 2014 was hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no provision under the Act whereby any consent/sanction of the Central Government is required for prosecution of the offences under Section 211(7), 211(3A), (3B) and (3C) of the Act. The controversy involved in the instant case has already been settled. Arguments similar to the ones made in the present case have been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in its decision in Kavi Arora [ 2015 (9) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT] To that extent this court is bound, therefore, there is no reason to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . State of M.P. 1975 SCC OnLine MP 94, (xi) N. Kumar v. M.O. Roy 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 406, (xii) Mishra Dhathu Nigam Ltd. v. State 1997 SCC OnLine AP 1015 and (xiii) AI Champdany Industries Limited v. Blancatex A.G. 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 764 4. Besides the aforesaid, learned counsel submits that this court in its authoritative pronouncement dated 17.09.2015 in the case of Kavi Arora v. Registrar of Companies 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12300 , and other connected matters, has quashed the complaint on the ground of limitation. She explains that the decision dated 17.09.2015, deals with the cases of the Managing Director, Company Secretary, Ex-Whole Time Director and Director, etc. for whom the limitation was for one year and the present case relates to Statutory Auditor, therefore, the limitation period is six months. She states that except aforesaid, all other facts and the legal position is the same. According to her, this case is squarely covered by the said decision dated 17.09.2015 and the present complaint followed by the order of taking cognizance needs to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Digpaul, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding since 2014 and parity is claimed with other orders emanating from the same inspection report. 8. The petitioner, in the instant case, is a partner at Price Water House, Chartered Accountants, which is a Statutory Auditor of M/s Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter, referred as the Company ). The petitioner by profession is a Chartered Accountant. On 10.07.2014, a complaint was filed against the petitioner before the court of the learned ACMM under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as Companies Act ) for the commission of an offence under Section 227(2) and 227(3)(d) of the Companies Act. According to the complaint so filed, the MCA; vide its letter dated 16.01.2013, directed for inspection of the books of accounts and other records of the Company under Section 209(A) of the Companies Act. The inspection of the books of accounts of the Company was carried out by the Assistant Director (Inspection) in April 2013. On 22.05.2013, the Inspecting Officer asked the petitioner to explain the violations found in the inspection so conducted. It is stated in the complaint that the petitioner failed to furnish any reply till the submission of the inspecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision to direct the Registrar of Companies to launch prosecution cannot be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation as both the Regional Director, i.e. the Central Government as well as the Registrar of Companies was competent to launch prosecution once they had knowledge of the commission of the offences as on 24th June, 2013, i.e. when the inspection reports were filed with either of them. Since for the offences under Section 211(7), 211(3A), (3B) and (3C) of the Act, no consent/sanction for prosecution from the Central Government is required. Section 470(3) Cr.P.C cannot be relied upon by the respondents. 53. Admittedly, Section 211 of the Act is punishable with six months imprisonment and fine. Under Section 468 Cr.P.C - no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year from the date of offence or the date of knowledge of the offence. Admittedly, the Inspector submitted his inspection report on 24th June, 2013 and the said complaint was only filed on 18th September, 2014, after the expiry of a year from the date of knowledge of the offence as provided under Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C. 54. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is complete the moment the Balance Sheet in question is issued by the Company unlike offences under Section 113, 162 and 168 of the Companies Act, 1956 which are continuing in nature. Reliance is placed on C.K. Ranganathan v. Registrar of Companies-2003 (4) SCL 500 (Mad) wherein it was held as under- 13. Since the offence under Section 211(7) of the Act is not a continuing one, the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognisance of the offence in the present case after the expiry of the period of limitation in view of the bar under Section 468 of the Cr. PC and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 64. As per the complaint, the Regional Director by his letter dated 2nd June, 2014 directed the respondent No. 1 to lodge prosecution. However, despite issuance of the said instruction, two show-cause notices dated 17th June, 2014 and 21st August, 2014 were issued by the respondent No. 1 to the Company and its various officers. The said show-cause notices were duly replied to vide replies dated 5th August, 2014 and 1st September, 2014 respectively. The Company also wrote a letter dated 13th August, 2014. The reference of replies as well as the letter dated 1st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
