TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (5) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e party No. 2, filed eleven complaints against the revisionists alleging that they are directors of the said company. That the returns as required by section 159 of the Act has not been filed from the years 1986 to 1991 and, therefore, the revisionists have committed an offence punishable under section 162 of the Act. All the eleven complaints were filed in the year 1991. 3. The learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, summoned all the revisionists in all the complaints. The revisionists filed objections and requested for the dismissal of the complaints and discharge of accused under section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applications have been rejected in all the cases by order dated 29-4-1999. Aggrieved by s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his is regarding a different dispute and is not regarding an offence under section 162. Therefore, this decision has no application. 7. As against this, the learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to the following cases, in which many High Courts of this country have taken a consistent view that offence under section 159/162 is not a continuing offence, and limitations prescribed under section 468 applies. It was held in all the cases that failure to file the return did not constitute a continuing offence and, therefore, cognizance could not be taken by the Magistrate after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under section 468. This view has been taken in the following cases : (1)National Cotton Mills v. Asstt. Reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 162 provides penalty for non-compliance and it provides that every officer of the company, who is in default, shall be punishable. It is contended that 'officer, who is in default', has been defined in section 5 of the Act in clauses (a) to (g). Clause (a ) provides regarding the managing director and clause (b) regarding the whole-time director. In para 2 of the complaint it has been mentioned that the revisionists are the directors of the company and are responsible for the compliance of the provisions laid down under section 159 of the Act. According to clause (b) of section 5, the director of the companies [company] can also be considered to be 'officer, who is in default'. Therefore, the question as to whether the revisionists....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the company is entitled to commence the business and shall file a statutory report with the Registrar of Companies. It is contended that provisions of sections 149 and 165 have not been complied with. Therefore, all directors and officers in default became liable to punishment under sub-section (9) of section 165 of the Act and they could be prosecuted under the said provisions. The company shall also be liable to be bounded [wound up ?] under clause (c) of section 433 of the Act. The winding up [petition ?] in such eventuality should be filed by the Registrar of Companies under section 439 of the Act. Therefore, the Registrar could have prosecuted the revisionists and other directors under clause (9) of section 165 and could have applied ....