Continuing offence for non-filing statutory accounts keeps limitation from barring prosecution; authorised complaint filing is maintainable.

A complaint for non-filing of a company's balance-sheet and profit and loss account was treated as validly instituted when filed through an authorised representative, because section 200 CrPC does not require the complainant's personal examination in every case. The objection that the witness was not authorised was rejected. The default in filing statutory accounts was also treated as a continuing offence, since the non-compliance persisted until the obligation was fulfilled. On that basis, the limitation bar under section 468 CrPC did not apply. The commentary states that the acquittal was set aside and liability followed for the statutory default.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint for an offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 was competent when filed through an authorized representative and when the complainant himself was not examined; (ii) whether failure to file the balance-sheet and profit and loss account amounted to a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for an offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 was competent when filed through an authorized representative and when the complainant himself was not examined.

Analysis: The record showed that the complaint had been instituted by the office of the Registrar of Companies and that the witness examined was working in that office and dealing with the legal cell. The Court treated the objection regarding absence of the complainant's personal examination as unsustainable, relying on the scheme of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which does not require personal appearance of the complainant in every case where an authorized person acts on his behalf. The trial court's view that the witness was not authorized was found to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be validly instituted through an authorized person, and the objection as to non-examination of the complainant failed.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to file the balance-sheet and profit and loss account amounted to a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The default concerned non-filing of statutory accounts within the prescribed time under the Companies Act, 1956. The Court accepted that such non-compliance continues from day to day until the obligation is fulfilled, and therefore the offence is of a continuing nature. On that basis, the complaint was not treated as barred by limitation.

Conclusion: The offence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 was held to be a continuing offence and the bar of limitation did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the appeal succeeded, and the accused were held liable for the statutory default with a monetary penalty imposed in lieu of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory default in filing required company accounts is a continuing offence, and a complaint instituted through an authorized representative is maintainable without the complainant's personal examination where the procedural law permits such authorization.

---