Statutory duty to place accounts before AGM cannot be defeated by the company's own default; limitation objection also failed.

Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot be avoided by a company relying on its own failure to convene the annual general meeting; the statutory duty to place the balance sheet and profit and loss account before the meeting remains enforceable, and the prosecution was not defeated on that ground. The limitation objection also failed because the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or fine or both, attracting the one-year period under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the complaint was filed within time. The quashing petition therefore could not succeed and the Magistrate proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prosecution under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be quashed on the ground that no annual general meeting was held and, therefore, the balance sheet and profit and loss account were not laid before the meeting; (ii) Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a prosecution under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be quashed on the ground that no annual general meeting was held and, therefore, the balance sheet and profit and loss account were not laid before the meeting.

Analysis: Section 210 operates in the context of the obligation to place the balance sheet and profit and loss account before the company at a general meeting held in pursuance of Section 166 of the Companies Act, 1956. The wording does not permit an to defeat the provision by relying on its own omission to call the meeting. The breach is not avoided merely because the meeting was not held, especially where the company could have convened it. The Court preferred the view that the statutory duty under Section 210 cannot be nullified by the failure to hold the meeting and relied on the principle that a party cannot take advantage of its own default.

Conclusion: The contention that the prosecution was not maintainable because no annual general meeting was held was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The offence under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. For such an offence, Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes a limitation period of one year. The complaint was filed within one year from the relevant date and was therefore not time-barred.

Conclusion: The objection based on limitation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition for quashing failed on both grounds and the proceedings before the Magistrate were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot defeat a statutory obligation under Section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956 by relying on its own failure to call the meeting, and an offence punishable with imprisonment up to one year attracts the one-year limitation under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---