State of Maharashtra vs Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd.

A.B. Palkar, J.—In this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated December 8, 1993, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Revision Application No. 68 of 1992. The revision application was filed by the contesting respondent M/s. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and Shri Anirudha Mahdav Bhat, company secretary against the order of issuing process passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratnagiri, in Complaint No. 1243 of 1994. Process was issued and cognizance was taken of offence u/s 113(1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956, on allegations of delay in issuing share certificates. The finding of the learned sessions judge was that the offence is punishable with fine only and the prosecution was barred by limitation. This is not disputed before me on the facts. It is not disputed that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and there was no accompanying application for condonation of delay before the learned magistrate. In the absence of any request of condonation of delay explaining the ground for delay the learned magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence and, therefore, the learned sessions judge found that in view of the law laid down by this court in R.C. Trivedi v. A.H. Paranjape [1982] CLJ 869 the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the offence was not legally sustainable .Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to my notice another judgment of the Orissa High Court reported in Subhashchandra Mohapatra v. M.S. Jaggi [1982] CLJ N. O. C. 92 wherein the same view was taken.

In view of the admitted position that the complaint filed before the magistrate was beyond the limitation, the order issuing process was liable to be set aside. The learned sessions judge was right in setting aside the order and there is absolutely no substance in this petition and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.