Limitation in criminal complaint under Companies Act alleged deposits turns on penal exposure and disputed facts, so quashing was refused.

Allegations of violation of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules 10 and 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 could not be treated as a mere fine-only contravention for limitation purposes. Because section 58A provided imprisonment for officers in default, the longer-punishment framework under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had to be considered. The question whether the receipts were in fact deposits within section 58A was a disputed factual issue for trial, not for quashing under section 482. The plea that the complaint was time-barred was therefore rejected, and the criminal proceeding was not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, having regard to the allegation of violation of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 and rules 10 and 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975.

Analysis: The alleged default was not confined to a mere contravention attracting only fine under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The complaint specifically alleged violation of section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956, under which punishment of imprisonment was also provided for officers in default. For computing limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the nature of the offence and the severer punishment had to be taken into account. Whether the receipts were in fact deposits falling within section 58A was a matter for trial and could not be conclusively decided at the quashing stage. The extraordinary power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not to be used to stifle the prosecution on disputed factual questions.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected and the criminal proceeding was not quashed.

---