Limitation and section 633 relief can defeat company-law prosecution where notices disclose no sustainable offence.

Prosecution for company-law defaults based on show-cause notices was treated as time-barred because offences punishable only with fine attracted a six-month limitation period under the Criminal Procedure Code, running from the date of offence or, where applicable, knowledge of the offence. The materials also did not disclose a sustainable case for prosecution: the disclosures on dividend accounting, related-party interest, dividend transfers, and whole-time director remuneration were found to reflect a tenable and largely compliant position. In an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, relief by discharge was considered justified where no real offence was made out and the conduct appeared honest and reasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution based on the show-cause notices was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the explanations furnished by the company and its officers disclosed any offence warranting prosecution, or justified relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution based on the show-cause notices was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: For offences punishable only with fine, the limitation period is six months. The period runs from the date of offence, or where the offence was not initially known to the person aggrieved, from the date of knowledge. On the facts, the department had knowledge at least by the notice dated 2 June 2010, and all alleged offences had occurred long before the application was filed. Since cognizance could not be taken after expiry of the limitation period, the proposed prosecution was time-barred.

Conclusion: The prosecution was barred by limitation and could not be proceeded with.

Issue (ii): Whether the explanations furnished by the company and its officers disclosed any offence warranting prosecution, or justified relief under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The notices concerned dividend accounting, disclosure of interest in related-company transactions, transfer of dividend amounts, and remuneration to whole-time directors. The explanations showed that the directors' shareholdings were below the statutory threshold, the dividend treatment was substantially compliant, the depreciation treatment reflected an arguable accounting view, and the remuneration was supported by the existence of a remuneration committee. In a section 633(2) application, the Court may relieve the alleged offenders by discharging them where the materials do not disclose a real case for prosecution, and the Court must assess whether the conduct was honest and reasonable or whether no offence is made out.

Conclusion: No offence was made out on the materials, and relief by discharge was justified.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded on both limitation and merits, and the petitioners were relieved from the threatened prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: In an application under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, the High Court may discharge alleged offenders where the complaint is already barred by limitation or where the materials disclose no sustainable offence and the conduct appears honest, reasonable, or supported by a tenable professional view.

---