Anticipatory relief, continuing offence, and limitation rules shaped liability for company filing defaults under the Companies Act.

Section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as anticipatory relief available only before proceedings are brought; once complaints are pending, relief lies before the seized court under section 633(1). A filing default under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was held not to be a continuing offence, because the breach is complete on expiry of the filing time unless the statute clearly provides otherwise. Complaints filed beyond the six-month limitation for a fine-only offence required condonation under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Liability also failed because the petitioners were not shown to be officers in default.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be granted when complaints were already pending before the Magistrate; (ii) whether the contravention under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was a continuing offence; (iii) whether the complaints were barred by limitation and cognizance could not be taken in the absence of an order under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iv) whether the petitioners were officers in default liable for the alleged non-filing of returns.

Issue (i): Whether relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 could be granted when complaints were already pending before the Magistrate.

Analysis: Section 633(2) is intended to operate at the stage where an officer has reason to apprehend that proceedings will or might be brought against him. Once proceedings have already been brought, the statutory premise of apprehension is no longer present. The provision therefore contemplates anticipatory relief, while relief in an actually pending proceeding lies before the court seized of that proceeding under section 633(1).

Conclusion: Relief under section 633(2) was not available merely because complaints were already pending; the provision is one of anticipatory jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the contravention under rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was a continuing offence.

Analysis: The penalty structure in rule 11, including an additional daily fine for a continuing contravention, was held to indicate only the measure of punishment and not to convert the default into a continuing offence. The default was complete on the expiry of the prescribed time for filing the return, and there was nothing in the rule or in section 58A of the Companies Act, 1956 to show that the offence was meant to continue from day to day.

Conclusion: The contravention was not a continuing offence; it was a single completed default.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaints were barred by limitation and cognizance could not be taken in the absence of an order under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The offence was punishable with fine only, so the applicable limitation period was six months. Under the scheme of sections 468 and 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cognizance after expiry of limitation could be taken only if delay was properly explained or condoned. Mere filing of a complaint beyond limitation did not, by itself, amount to valid cognizance.

Conclusion: The complaints were time-barred unless delay was condoned under section 473, and cognizance could not be treated as validly taken on mere filing.

Issue (iv): Whether the petitioners were officers in default liable for the alleged non-filing of returns.

Analysis: Liability under section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956 depends upon being an officer in default. On the facts, the petitioners were not shown to have participated in the relevant resolutions, controlled the day-to-day affairs, or had custody of the company records. The material showed that the managing director alone ated the affairs, while the petitioners had no demonstrated role in the alleged defaults.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not officers in default and were not liable for the alleged defaults.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to relief from the alleged liabilities, and the proceeding was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 633(2) provides only anticipatory relief before proceedings are brought, a time-bound filing default is ordinarily a single completed offence and not a continuing one unless the statute clearly says so, and criminal cognizance after expiry of limitation requires compliance with the condonation mechanism under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---