Continuing offence for non-filing of company returns keeps limitation inapplicable and resignation alone does not end liability.

Failure to file annual returns and balance sheets under the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as a continuing offence because the statutory scheme imposed a day-to-day obligation until compliance was made; limitation under Section 468 CrPC therefore did not apply, and Section 472 governed the running of time during the continuance of the default. Resignation as director did not, by itself, end liability as an officer in default for non-filing of statutory returns and accounts, because that would permit avoidance of the filing duty by resignation alone. The liability objection was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to file annual returns and balance sheets under the Companies Act constituted a continuing offence so as to exclude the application of the limitation period. (ii) Whether resignation as director ceased the petitioner's status as an officer in default for the purpose of liability under the Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether failure to file annual returns and balance sheets under the Companies Act constituted a continuing offence so as to exclude the application of the limitation period.

Analysis: The default in filing annual returns and balance sheets was examined in the light of the statutory scheme of Sections 159, 162 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. Those provisions impose a continuing daily liability for non-compliance, and the offence continues so long as the default remains unremedied. On that footing, the limitation provision in Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 does not apply, while Section 472 of that Code governs the running of limitation during the continuance of the offence.

Conclusion: The default was held to be a continuing offence, and the limitation objection was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether resignation as director ceased the petitioner's status as an officer in default for the purpose of liability under the Companies Act.

Analysis: Section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 was read to determine whether a director who had resigned could still be treated as an officer in default for non-filing of statutory returns and accounts. The Court held that resignation by itself could not defeat the statutory obligation, since otherwise compliance with Sections 159 and 220 could be avoided simply by tendering resignation. The Court also noted that the factual contention that the company records were unavailable to the petitioner had not been raised earlier and could not be considered at that stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not relieved of liability merely because of resignation, and the contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed on both the limitation and liability objections, and the convictions were allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where company-law provisions impose a day-to-day penal consequence for continued non-compliance, the default is a continuing offence; resignation does not, by itself, extinguish statutory liability where the governing definition still covers the former office-holder.

---