Limitation and essential averments controlled cognizance and process, making provisional condonation and unsupported prosecution unsustainable.

Limitation bars cognizance of a time-barred offence unless delay is first validly condoned under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so a provisional condonation before cognizance is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Criminal process for an offence under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 can issue only where the complaint clearly pleads that the relevant officer or trustee knowingly contravened, authorised, or permitted breach of sections 417, 418, or 419; absent such averments, the essential ingredients are not disclosed and the proceedings cannot be maintained. The impugned orders were therefore unsustainable and the prosecution was quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether provisional condonation of delay under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before taking cognizance was lawful; (ii) Whether the complaints disclosed a prima facie case for issuance of process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether provisional condonation of delay under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before taking cognizance was lawful.

Analysis: Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operates as a bar to taking cognizance of a time-barred offence unless the delay is first condoned under section 473. The Magistrate had no authority to condone delay provisionally and then take cognizance, because the bar must be lifted before cognizance is assumed.

Conclusion: The provisional condonation order was without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaints disclosed a prima facie case for issuance of process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Liability under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 required a complaint to allege that an officer of the company or a relevant provident fund trustee knowingly contravened, authorised, or permitted contravention of sections 417, 418, or 419. The complaints contained no such clear averment and did not show how the accused were responsible for the alleged offence, so the essential ingredients for process were absent.

Conclusion: The complaints did not justify issuance of process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the criminal proceedings were not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders could not stand, and the entire prosecution was quashed for want of a valid basis to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where limitation bars cognizance, delay must be validly condoned before cognizance is taken, and criminal process for a statutory offence can issue only if the complaint discloses every essential ingredient of the offence by clear factual averment.

---