Wrongful withholding of company property is not a continuing offence, but limitation may still be extended when delay is explained.

Wrongful withholding of company property after termination of employment under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 is complete when the withholding first becomes unlawful and is not a continuing offence under section 472 CrPC. On limitation, a complaint for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years attracts a three-year period under section 468(1)(c) CrPC; a filing beyond that period is time-barred. The court may nevertheless extend limitation under section 473 CrPC where the delay is properly explained or where cognizance is necessary in the interests of justice, and no separate application is mandatory. Applying that principle, the complaint was restored for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether wrongful withholding of company property after termination of employment under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 constitutes a continuing offence; (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation and, if so, whether delay could be extended in the interests of justice.

Issue (i): Whether wrongful withholding of company property after termination of employment under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 constitutes a continuing offence.

Analysis: The offence under section 630(1)(b) is complete when an employee, after termination of service, wrongfully withholds company property without legal sanction. The subsequent continuance in possession does not create a fresh offence from day to day. The concept of continuing offence under section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where the wrongful act itself continues as a recurring default; wrongful withholding in the facts of the case was not of that character.

Conclusion: The offence under section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 is not a continuing offence.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation and, if so, whether delay could be extended in the interests of justice.

Analysis: Since the offence was punishable with imprisonment up to two years, the limitation period under section 468(1)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was three years. The complaint was filed more than four years after the date when the withholding became wrongful, and was therefore time-barred. However, section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers the court to take cognizance after expiry of limitation where delay is properly explained or where it is necessary in the interests of justice, and no separate application is mandatory. On the facts pleaded, the delay was sufficiently explained and the matter justified extension of limitation.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation, but the delay ought to have been condoned under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court restored the complaint for further proceedings, holding that wrongful withholding under section 630 is not a continuing offence, but that limitation could be extended on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Wrongful withholding of company property after termination of employment under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is complete when the withholding first becomes unlawful and is not a continuing offence, but limitation may still be extended under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the delay is explained or the interests of justice so require.

---