TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal 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 rule 3 of the Rules. These deposits to the tune of Rs. 1.92 lakhs were in contravention of rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules far exceeding 25% of the aggregate of the paid-up share capital and free reserves of the company, M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd., of which the petitioner-accused and the two other accused persons mentioned in the petition of complaint were the officers/directors at the relevant time. On the basis of these allegations in the petition of complaint, which was filed on July 20, 1983, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, an order was passed by the learned Magistrate for issuing summons to the accused persons. Subsequently, a petition was filed in the court of the learned Magistrate by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the case was barred by limitation as well as on the further ground that opposite p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, to include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. Similar is the definition of the word "person" in section 11 of the Indian Penal Code. According to section 11 of the Indian Penal Code, the word "person" includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. In view of this comprehensive definition of the word "person", generally, every penal provision in every statute relating 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of C. V. Parekh, AIR 1971 SC 447, and has held that section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act does not lay down any condition that the person-in-charge or an officer of the company may not be separately prosecuted if the company itself is not prosecuted. According to the decision in the case of Sheoratan [1984] SCC (Cr) 620; AIR 1984 SC 1824, each or any one of the persons mentioned in section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act may be separately prosecuted or along with the company. The only condition precedent for such prosecution is that there should be a finding that the contravention was by the company. In view of this decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheoratan [1984] SCC (Cr) 620; AIR 1984 SC 1824, and the disjunctive provisions in clauses (a) and (b ) to section 58A(6) of the Act, the decision of that court in the case of Maya Chandrav. Inspector, Minimum Wages Office [1979] Cr LJ 534, or the decision in the case of Krishna Trading Co. v. Slate of Bihar [1979] Cr LJ 760, can no longer be good law. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1983 SC 67, which was a case under the Food Adulteration Act, there was no clear allegation ag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Rules is punishable only under rule 11 of 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 contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to Rs. 50 for every day after the first during which the contravention continues. Both Mr. Mukherjee and the learned advocate for opposite party No. 1 proceed on the assumption that rule 11 of the Rules will govern the question of limitation in this case. I am unable to accept this contention because of the expression "for which no....