Limitation for Companies Act inspection offences runs from the first notice's expiry, and later notices cannot extend prosecution time.

A complaint under sections 209A(2) and 209A(8) of the Companies Act was held time-barred because the alleged non-production of books and non-compliance with the inspection demand were not continuing offences. Limitation began when the inspection was made and, at the latest, when the time fixed in the first statutory notice expired. A later notice or further opportunity could not extend limitation or revive a prosecution already out of time. The complaint was therefore barred by limitation, and the acquittal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under sections 209A(2) and 209A(8) of the Companies Act was barred by limitation, and when the period of limitation commenced.

Analysis: The alleged default was not treated as a continuing offence. The alleged non-production of books and failure to comply with the inspection-related demand were held to have occurred when the inspection was made and, at the latest, when the time fixed in the first notice expired. The statute did not permit the inspecting authority to extend limitation by issuing later notices or by granting a further opportunity after the first prescribed period had run out. The subsequent notice could not postpone the date of commission of the offence or revive limitation.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and the acquittal was sustained in favour of the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the prosecution was time-barred on the facts found, and the dismissal of the complaint stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the offence under section 209A(2) is not continuing, limitation runs from the expiry of the time fixed in the first statutory notice, and a later notice cannot extend the period for prosecution.

---