TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the sake of convenience), read with rule 3(2)(ii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The averments in the petition of complaint were that it appeared from the return submitted by M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd. under rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, ("the Rules", for short) as on March 31, 1982, filed in the office of the complainant on January 21, 1983, that the total amount of deposits of the kinds referred to in rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules was Rs. 1.92 lakhs against the total amount of Rs. 1.31 lakhs, being the aggregate of the paid-up capital and free reserves reduced by the accumulated loss, deferred revenue expenditure, etc., as arrived at on the lines indicated in the Explanation to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to the cases of Maya Chandra v. Inspector, Minimum Wages Office, [1979] Cr LJ 534. State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, AIR 1983 SC 67. Mr. Mukherjee has also referred, in this connection, to another decision in the case of Krishna Trading Co. v. State of Bihar [1979] Cr LJ 760. The second contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that the case is barred by limitation. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 1, has challenged both these contentions of Mr. Mukherjee. According to Mr. Das, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. C. V. Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447, has been reconsidered by the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of She....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to a person includes also a company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Nevertheless, in some special statutes, some special penal provisions have also been specifically incorporated relating to offences by companies. Such special provisions relating to offences by companies are to be found in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, section 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, section 22C of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, etc. These special provisions regarding offences by companies have been incorporated in such statutes by way of additional precautions so that each and every officer of the company, be he a director or not, is not fastened with criminal liability simply because of his r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subsequent decision in the case of Sheoratan Agarwal [1984] SCC (Cr) 620 ; AIR 1984 SC 1824. Mr. Mukherjee has tried to argue that the decision in the case of Sheoratan cannot have precedence over the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. V. Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447, as the decision in the case of C.V. Parekh was by three most eminent judges of the Supreme Court and the decision in the case of Sheoratan was by two most eminent judges of the Supreme Court. Mr. Mukherjee could not, however, show any decision of the Supreme Court that a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court by a lesser number of judges, clarifying an earlier decision of the Supreme Court by a greater number of judges, is not to be followed under article 141....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petition of complaint against the accused-petitioner and the other two accused persons. In paragraph 8 of the petition of complaint, it has been stated that the officers/directors of the company, who are in default for violating the provisions in rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules, have knowingly and wilfully contravened these provisions. Rules 4 and 4A of the Rules show the liability of the directors in the matter. Section 5 of the Act defines the "officer who is in default". In the circumstances, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67, it cannot be stated that the proceedings against the petitioner and the other two accused of the case are to be quashed in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Rules, the petition of complaint ought to have been filed within September, 1982, for the period ending March 31, 1982, as the Registrar of Companies could have resorted to various provisions of the Act itself to acquaint themselves with the actual state of affairs prevailing in the company. I am unable to accept the contention of either Mr. Mukherjee or the learned advocate for opposite party No. 1 as regards the question of limitation. Under rule 11 of the Rules, if a company or any other person contravenes any provision of the rules for which no punishment is provided in the Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500 and where the....