Clerical error in cost audit filing and limitation bar on fine-only complaint led to quashing of proceedings.

Contemporaneous records showed that the cost audit report was approved and handed over on 30.06.2016, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016, within thirty days. The incorrect date in the uploaded form was treated as a clerical mistake, so the alleged contravention of the filing requirement was not made out. The complaint also alleged only an offence punishable with fine, yet it was instituted about three years later, beyond the limitation period. Cognizance on that time-barred complaint was unsustainable, and continuation of the proceeding was held to be an abuse of process, warranting quashing in inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged belated filing of the cost audit report was a delay or only a clerical error in the uploaded form; (ii) Whether the criminal complaint and cognizance were barred by limitation for an offence punishable with fine only.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged belated filing of the cost audit report was a delay or only a clerical error in the uploaded form.

Analysis: The record showed that the board approved the cost audit report on 30.06.2016, the cost auditor signed and handed over the report on the same date, and Form CRA-4 was filed on 27.07.2016. On that material, the period fell within thirty days. The incorrect date entered in the form was treated as a clerical mistake in uploading, and the surrounding documents supported the petitioners' case.

Conclusion: The alleged contravention of the thirty-day requirement was not made out against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the criminal complaint and cognizance were barred by limitation for an offence punishable with fine only.

Analysis: The alleged default, even on the complaint's case, attracted only monetary penalty under the governing provision. The complaint was instituted after about three years, far beyond the period of limitation applicable to such an offence. In those circumstances, taking cognizance was held to be unsustainable, and continuation of the proceeding was considered an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint and cognizance were barred by limitation and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was terminated in exercise of inherent jurisdiction because the alleged default was not substantiated on the documents and the complaint was time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the contemporaneous records show compliance and the only apparent discrepancy is a clerical mistake in the form, a prosecution for the alleged default cannot be sustained, and a complaint for a fine-only offence filed beyond the limitation period cannot validly survive.

---