Non-compliance with Rule 10 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules is a continuing offense

The court held that the offense of non-compliance with rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is a continuing one until the required return is filed, rejecting the limitation argument raised by the petitioners. The judgment emphasized the importance of fulfilling filing requirements under the Companies Act, 1956, and allowed legal proceedings to proceed despite the passage of the limitation period.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of provisions of rule 10 read with section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 - Whether the offense is a continuing one or not.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment involves two applications concerning the violation of rule 10 read with section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, where the petitioners failed to submit a return as required by the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, by the specified deadline of 30th June each year. The complaint alleged a continuing offense punishable under rule 11 of the said Rules, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The petitioners challenged the cognizance taken after the limitation period had passed, arguing that the offense was not of a continuing nature, citing a previous decision under section 162 of the Companies Act [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].

In analyzing the nature of the offense, the court considered the provisions of rule 10, which mandated the filing of a return with the Registrar by the specified date. The court noted that the requirement of filing the return under rule 10 continues beyond the deadline, as failure to do so is punishable under rule 11. The court reasoned that the offense is continuing until the return is filed, and paying a fine does not absolve the company from fulfilling the filing requirement. Therefore, the court concluded that the offense arising from non-compliance with rule 10 is a continuing offense, allowing the proceedings to proceed despite the limitation argument raised by the petitioners [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].

Furthermore, the court addressed the contention that the petition of complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate the violation of section 58A of the Companies Act. The court clarified that the violation was evident from the non-filing of the return as required under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, dismissing the argument raised by the petitioners [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].

In conclusion, the court rejected the application, affirming that the offense in question was a continuing one under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, and therefore not barred by limitation. The judgment emphasized the ongoing nature of the offense until compliance with the filing requirement, ensuring that companies fulfill their obligations under the Companies Act, 1956 [1986 (7) TMI 328 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA].

---