Continuing offence and limitation in annual return defaults: non-filing was completed on the due date, barring late complaints.

Failure to file the annual return under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was treated as an offence completed on the due date, because the scheme did not create a continuing duty after 30 June. Rule 11's daily fine applied only where the contravention was actually continuing, so non-filing was not a continuing offence. As the offence was punishable with fine only, Section 468 CrPC imposed a six-month limitation period from the date of default, and complaints filed after that period were barred; the convictions and sentences were set aside and the accused acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to file the annual return under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 is a continuing offence under Rule 11. (ii) Whether the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether failure to file the annual return under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 is a continuing offence under Rule 11.

Analysis: Rule 10 required every company to file the return with the Registrar on or before 30 June each year. The omission to file the return by that date completed the offence at once, and the rule did not impose a continuing obligation thereafter. Rule 11 provided a basic fine for contravention and an additional daily fine only where the contravention was in fact continuing. The failure to submit the return was treated as an offence committed once for all, not as a continuing offence.

Conclusion: The non-filing of the return was not a continuing offence.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaints were barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Since the offence was punishable with fine only, the limitation period under Section 468 was six months from the date of the offence. The relevant date was 30 June of the respective year, when the default became complete. The complaints were filed after expiry of six months, and cognizance was therefore not permissible.

Conclusion: The complaints were barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were set aside, the revisions were allowed, and the accused were acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A failure to file a return by the prescribed due date, where the statutory scheme does not impose a continuing duty after that date, constitutes an offence once and for all and attracts the ordinary limitation period from the date of default.

---