Continuing offence doctrine kept company default complaints within limitation; disputed notice service was not fit for quashing.

Failure to file annual returns and financial statements within the statutory time was treated as a continuing offence because the Companies Act, 1956 scheme imposes a fine for every day of default until compliance. On that basis, the bar of limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code did not apply and the complaints were not time-barred. A separate objection that show-cause notice was not issued or served was treated as a disputed factual issue, suitable for trial and not for quashing proceedings. The defect was therefore not a ground for interference at the threshold.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged defaults under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 constituted continuing offences so as to exclude the bar of limitation; (ii) Whether the alleged non-issuance or non-service of show-cause notice furnished a ground to quash the criminal complaints.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged defaults under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 constituted continuing offences so as to exclude the bar of limitation.

Analysis: The default related to failure to file annual returns and balance sheet and profit and loss account within the statutory time. The statutory scheme in Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 prescribes fine for every day during which the default continues, which indicates that the liability endures until compliance. The Court followed the settled view that such defaults are continuing offences and that, in such cases, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment during which the offence continues. Accordingly, the bar under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply, and the complaints were not time-barred.

Conclusion: The offences were held to be continuing offences, and the plea of limitation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged non-issuance or non-service of show-cause notice furnished a ground to quash the criminal complaints.

Analysis: The Court treated the objection regarding service of notice as a disputed question of fact. Such an objection could be examined in trial and not in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaints. The asserted defect did not justify interference at the threshold.

Conclusion: The absence or disputed service of show-cause notice was not accepted as a ground for quashing.

Final Conclusion: The complaints disclosed no ground for interference, as the defaults were continuing offences and the factual challenge regarding notice was not fit for adjudication in quash proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory default that continues until compliance, and is punishable with fine for each day of non-compliance, constitutes a continuing offence for limitation purposes; factual disputes unsuitable for determination in quash proceedings do not warrant interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---