Dividend default complaints require timely filing and specific averments to fix liability on directors and officers

A complaint alleging non-payment of dividend must be brought within the applicable limitation period unless delay is duly condoned, because the offence was treated as not continuing and cognizance could not be taken after the bar attached. Liability of directors and officers under the Companies Act, 1956 also requires specific averments identifying the officer in default and showing that the named directors were knowingly party to the default. Where the complaint names resigned directors, omits foundational facts on shareholder entitlement, and lacks those particulars, it is legally deficient.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint for non-payment of dividend was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed the necessary averments to fasten liability on the directors and other officers under the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint for non-payment of dividend was barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The alleged default concerned failure to pay dividend within forty-two days, attracting the punishment provision then applicable under the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint was filed more than three years after the alleged declaration of dividend, while the offence was treated as not being a continuing offence. No application for condonation of delay was filed, and in the absence of an order lifting the bar of limitation, cognizance could not be taken.

Conclusion: The complaint was time-barred and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed the necessary averments to fasten liability on the directors and other officers under the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Liability under the Companies Act, 1956 was required to be fastened on the officer in default, and for the dividend default only those directors who were knowingly parties to the default could be proceeded against. The complaint did not identify the officer in default, included directors who had already resigned, and lacked specific averments showing that the named directors were knowingly parties to the default. It also did not contain adequate foundational material regarding the complainants' entitlement as shareholders.

Conclusion: The complaint was found deficient on these counts and this issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings arising from the complaint were quashed because the prosecution was barred by limitation and the complaint did not properly establish the basis for fastening liability on the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint for a dividend-default offence must be filed within the applicable limitation period unless delay is duly condoned, and liability cannot be imposed without specific averments identifying the officer in default and the persons knowingly party to the default.

---