Limitation bars cognizance of a fine-only offence when no condonation request accompanies a delayed complaint.

A complaint for an offence punishable with fine only under the Companies Act was filed after expiry of limitation, and no application for condonation of delay or explanation justifying cognizance was placed before the Magistrate. In those circumstances, cognizance could not be validly taken and the order issuing process was not legally sustainable. The limitation objection was therefore upheld, and the challenge to the process order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order issuing process for offences under Section 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 was liable to be set aside on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond limitation without any application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The complaint was admitted to have been presented after the expiry of the limitation period. No application seeking condonation of delay accompanied the complaint, and there was no explanation placed before the Magistrate to justify taking cognizance despite the delay. In such circumstances, cognizance of an offence punishable with fine only could not be validly taken. The Sessions Judge was therefore correct in holding that the order issuing process was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order issuing process failed, and the objection based on limitation was upheld in favour of the respondent.

---