Non-speaking summoning orders and limitation under fine-only offences led to quashing of complaint proceedings.

A non-speaking summoning order that merely states a prima facie offence without recording reasons was held unsustainable for lack of application of mind. The complaint and consequential proceedings were also barred by limitation because the alleged Companies Act offence was punishable only with fine, attracting a six-month limitation period under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence was not treated as continuing, and limitation ran from the date the competent authority obtained actionable knowledge of the alleged violation. Administrative time taken for internal instructions by the Regional Director could not be excluded in the absence of any governing provision. The impugned summoning order and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summoning order, being non-speaking, could be sustained. (ii) Whether the complaint and summoning proceedings were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the summoning order, being non-speaking, could be sustained.

Analysis: The order taking cognizance recorded no reasons and merely stated that the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence. An order of this nature lacks the necessary application of mind and is vulnerable on that ground.

Conclusion: The summoning order was unsustainable as a non-speaking order.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint and summoning proceedings were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The alleged offence under the Companies Act was punishable only with fine. For such offences, the period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure was six months. The Court applied the earlier co-ordinate Bench decision on the same inspection report and held that the time taken by the Regional Director for administrative instructions could not be excluded. The offence was not treated as a continuing offence, and limitation was held to run from the date when the competent authority obtained actionable knowledge of the alleged violation.

Conclusion: The complaint and consequential proceedings were barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The impugned summoning order and all consequential proceedings were quashed, and the petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an offence punishable only with fine is not a continuing offence, limitation runs from actionable knowledge of the competent authority, and administrative time taken for internal instructions cannot extend or exclude the statutory limitation period in the absence of a governing provision.

---