Limitation for false statutory returns runs from date of knowledge, and distinct Companies Act offences may overlap

False filing in a statutory return can attract prosecution under section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 even where section 75 may also be relevant, because the two provisions create distinct offences and the same act may constitute more than one offence. For limitation purposes, an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years carries a three-year period under section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and where the falsity was discovered later, time runs from the date of knowledge under section 469(1)(b). The text also notes that a Special Court constituted by notification had jurisdiction to try Companies Act offences and that its validity could not be challenged in proceedings under section 482 CrPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution for filing a false Form No. 2 under the Companies Act was barred by limitation, whether the alleged conduct fell only under section 75 or also under section 628 of the Companies Act, and whether the proceedings could be quashed on the ground that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction.

Analysis: An offence under section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, was held to be distinct from an offence under section 75 of that Act, and the same act could attract more than one offence. For an offence punishable with imprisonment up to two years, the period of limitation under section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is three years, and where the commission of the offence was not known to the aggrieved person, limitation commences under section 469(1)(b) of that Code from the date of knowledge. Since the complaint was filed within three years from the date on which the alleged falsity came to light, the prosecution was not time-barred. The challenge to the competence of the Special Court was also rejected because the Government notification constituting that forum vested it with jurisdiction to try offences under the Companies Act, and the validity of that notification could not be attacked in proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The complaint was within limitation, the alleged act could be prosecuted under section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the proceedings could not be quashed on the jurisdictional objection raised.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing was rejected and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged falsity in a statutory return is discovered later, limitation begins from the date of knowledge under section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and an act may constitute distinct offences under different provisions without excluding prosecution under the provision specifically penalising false statements in statutory documents.

---