Continuing default on refund of application money keeps limitation open and supports prosecution based on Registrar information.

A prosecution complaint may be founded on information received by the Registrar of Companies without examining the original informant where the material facts are undisputed and the complaint merely sets the criminal law in motion. A failure to refund application money by the prescribed date can constitute a continuing default until actual refund, so limitation does not run from the first omission alone. On that basis, a complaint filed later was treated as within time and not barred by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution complaint could be maintained on the basis of the information received by the Registrar of Companies without examining the original informant. (ii) Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation or was saved on the footing that the default constituted a continuing offence.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution complaint could be maintained on the basis of the information received by the Registrar of Companies without examining the original informant.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on information received by the Registrar of Companies regarding non-refund of application money in breach of the statutory duty arising from the public issue. The Registrar was competent to initiate prosecution on the basis of such information. The original informant was not required to be examined where the material facts were not in dispute and the complaint merely set the criminal law in motion on receipt of the information.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not vitiated for want of examination of the original informant, and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution was barred by limitation or was saved on the footing that the default constituted a continuing offence.

Analysis: The accused were bound to refund the application money by the prescribed date. The record showed that even on the date of the Registrar's reply in November 1994 the amount had still not been refunded. The omission therefore persisted until refund and was treated as a continuing default. On that basis, the complaint filed in April 1995 was within the statutory period and Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not bar the prosecution.

Conclusion: The prosecution was within limitation because the default was a continuing offence, and this objection also failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory obligation to refund application money continues until compliance, the default is a continuing offence for limitation purposes, and prosecution may be initiated on the basis of information received by the Registrar without examining the original informant.

---