TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Private complaint quashed as Companies Act amendments converted criminal penalties to civil penalties for non-filing violations</h1> The Madras HC quashed a private complaint against petitioners for offences under Sections 92(5) and 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 relating to ... Quashing of private complaint for the offence under Sections 92(5) and 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - non- compliance of Sections 92(4) and 137(1) & (2) of the Act - petitioners had not filed the annual return and balance sheet till date - continuing offences - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted here that subsequent to modifying the sentence from fine to penalty in the year 2019, the Companies Amendment Act 2020 also brought about change in the quantum of penalty that can be levied. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Companies Amendment Act, 2019 and the Companies Amendment Act, 2020 which further changes or mollifies the rigour of punishment for the lapses. Since the petitioner's case is similar to the case that is extracted above, the prosecution against the petitioners is transferred to the adjudicating authority appointed under the Act to adjudicate the contravention committed by the petitioners in terms of Section 454 read with 92(5) and 137(3) of the Act. This Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Whether the private complaint for non-compliance with Sections 92(4) and 137(1) & (2) of the Companies Act, 2013 should be quashed.2. Whether the amendments to the Companies Act, 2019 and 2020, which decriminalized certain offences, apply retrospectively to pending prosecutions.3. Whether the payment of penalty and compounding fees absolves the petitioners from prosecution.4. Whether the prosecution amounts to double jeopardy.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of Private Complaint:The petitioners sought to quash the private complaint filed for non-compliance with Sections 92(4) and 137(1) & (2) of the Companies Act, 2013, arguing that they have subsequently filed the required annual returns and financial statements. The petitioners contended that the complaint should be quashed since the offences were decriminalized by the amendments to the Act in 2019, and the punishments were changed from fines to penalties, suggesting that the offences can no longer be tried by a Magistrate but must be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013.2. Retrospective Application of Amendments:The court examined whether the amendments to the Companies Act, which reduced the punishment for certain offences, apply to pending prosecutions. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment in T. Barai Vs Henry Ah Hoe, which held that when legislation reduces the punishment for an offence, the accused should benefit from the reduced punishment even if the offence occurred when a more severe punishment was in place. The court noted that the amendments aimed to reduce the rigour of punishments for technical and procedural lapses to promote ease of doing business and better corporate compliance. The court found that the amendments should apply to pending prosecutions, and the offences should be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority rather than being tried as criminal offences.3. Payment of Penalty and Compounding Fees:The respondent argued that the payment of penalties for delayed submissions does not absolve the petitioners from the offences. The respondent also stated that the petitioners had not paid the compounding fee and thus were not entitled to seek quashing of the complaint. The court, however, focused on the legislative intent behind the amendments, which was to treat such violations as technical and procedural, to be adjudicated in-house rather than through criminal prosecution.4. Double Jeopardy:The petitioners argued that the prosecution amounted to double jeopardy since they had already paid penalties. The court did not explicitly address the double jeopardy claim but emphasized the legislative changes that decriminalized the offences, thereby altering the nature of the proceedings from criminal to administrative adjudication.Conclusion:The court concluded that the amendments to the Companies Act, which changed the punishment from fines to penalties, should apply to pending prosecutions. The prosecution against the petitioners was transferred to the adjudicating authority appointed under Section 454 of the Companies Act for further proceedings. The court highlighted the legislative intent to ease doing business and reduce the number of prosecutions for technical and procedural lapses. The Criminal Original Petition was disposed of, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
