Limitation and non-continuing default defeat prosecution for failure to file annual return against directors.

Failure to file the statutory annual return was treated as a completed default on expiry of the filing period, not a continuing offence, so cognizance was barred by limitation. The court applied the settled rule that a one-time omission does not keep limitation alive merely because the default remains unrectified. The complaint also failed to disclose a prima facie penal offence against the directors alleged to be in default; although their responsibility was asserted, the facts pleaded did not sustain liability under the provision invoked. The complaints were therefore held not maintainable and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to file the annual return under the Companies Act constituted a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation for cognizance. (ii) Whether a prima facie offence under the penal provision was made out against the revisionists as directors in default.

Issue (i): Whether failure to file the annual return under the Companies Act constituted a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation for cognizance.

Analysis: The omission to file the return was treated as complete on the expiry of the statutory period for filing and not as a continuing wrong. The reasoning followed the settled view that where the default is a one-time omission, the limitation period for taking cognizance runs from the date of omission and is not extended merely because the default remains unrectified.

Conclusion: The offence was not a continuing offence and cognizance was barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether a prima facie offence under the penal provision was made out against the revisionists as directors in default.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the revisionists were directors responsible for compliance, and the question whether they fell within the statutory expression used for liability depended on facts to be examined in evidence. At the same time, the complaint itself and the corporate position disclosed that the company had not complied with the basic preconditions for the filing obligation, and the court found that no offence under the penal provision was made out against the revisionists.

Conclusion: No prima facie offence was made out against the revisionists.

Final Conclusion: The complaints were not maintainable, both because they were time-barred and because no offence under the penal provision was disclosed, so the revisions succeeded and the complaints were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to file a statutory return is not a continuing offence, and where the complaint does not disclose a sustainable offence on the facts alleged, cognizance cannot be sustained beyond the limitation period.

---