Statutory return default is not a continuing offence, and limitation bars prosecution when complaint is filed late.

A written complaint by a public servant acting in discharge of official duty did not require examination of the complainant or witnesses under Section 200 CrPC before cognizance, so that objection failed. Failure to file the statutory return under the Companies Act was held not to be a continuing offence merely because the penalty was expressed with reference to each day of default; the offence was complete when the return was not filed within time. As the complaint was lodged beyond the six-month limitation period for an offence punishable only with fine, cognizance was barred and the prosecutions were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cognizance of the complaint was invalid for want of examination of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the prosecution for failure to file the statutory return under Sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the default was not a continuing offence.

Issue (i): Whether cognizance of the complaint was invalid for want of examination of the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 200 dispenses with examination on oath where the complaint is in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties. The complaint here was made by a public servant in that capacity, so the Magistrate was not required to examine the complainant or his witnesses before taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution for failure to file the statutory return under Sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 because the default was not a continuing offence.

Analysis: The obligation under Section 159 is to file the return within the prescribed time, and the penal provision in Section 162 only fixes the measure of punishment by reference to each day of default. A continuing offence arises only where the statutory duty itself continues until compliance, or the statute expressly makes continuance an offence. Here, the offence was complete when the return was not filed within time, and the daily fine did not convert the default into a continuing offence. As the complaints were filed long after the six-month limitation period applicable to an offence punishable only with fine, cognizance was barred.

Conclusion: The prosecutions were time-barred and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions succeeded, the proceedings were held unsustainable on limitation grounds, and the prosecutions were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A default in filing a statutory return is not a continuing offence merely because the penalty is expressed as a daily fine, and where the complaint is by a public servant in writing, Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not require examination of the complainant or witnesses before cognizance.

---