Central Manbhum Coal Co. P. Ltd. and Others vs Assistant Registrar of Companies and Others

Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J.—This writ petition arises out of a complaint lodged by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, u/s 220(3) read with Section 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint itself records that the annual general meeting of the company should have been held in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act on or before June 30, 1980, and the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account of the company for the year ending December 31, 1979, was required to be filed u/s 220(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, in the office of the Registrar of Companies on or before July 30, 1980. Penalty for the offence charged u/s 220(3) read with Section 162(1) of the Companies Act is only a fine.

In that view of the statement, the right to prosecute accrued on July 30, 1980. Admittedly, this complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on September 16, 1982.

Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. The limitation for an offence punishable with fine only is six months. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Pranab Pal, appearing for the petitioner, that the learned Magistrate cannot in view of the bar of limitation take cognizance of the matter. Mr. Pal in support of his contention cited a decision of this court in National Cotton Mills and Others Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies and Another, , wherein all relevant decisions have been noted and the proceedings were, quashed on the ground of being time-barred.

Mr. P.K. Bose, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the offence u/s 220(3) read with Section 162(2) of the Companies Act is a continuing offence and, as such, question of limitation would not arise on the facts of this case. I am, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bose. The language of Section 162(1) makes it clear that it is not a continuing offence. In the view taken by the Division Bench of this court, it is apparent, the complaint is ex facie barred by limitation.

In that view of the matter, this application succeeds. The rule is, therefore, made absolute.

There will be no order as to costs.

Since no affidavit has been filed, the allegations in the petition are not admitted by Mr. Bose.