TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& Investment Private Limited is a registered Private Limited Company with the office of the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company petitioner No. 1. Case No. 799M/84 was filed by the Registrar of the Companies against the petitioners on 26-7-1984 before the Court, Economic Offences, Patna with the allegation that according to the provisions of section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company and its directors are under the statutory obligation to file with the Registrar of the Companies three copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account in prescribed form duly placed in the annual general meeting within 30 days of the date of the annual general meeting and in c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10-2001. 4. On 7-9-2002 at the fag of the present case the accused persons filed two applications before the Special Judge, Economic Offences. In the petition it is stated that the complaint of this case has been filed after more than two years of the commission of the alleged offence so it is barred under section 468(2) Cr. P.C. as the period of limitation prescribed under section 468(2)(a) Cr. P.C. is six months only if the punishment for the alleged offence is only fine. Under section 220(3) of the Companies Act the punishment awarded is only fine. It has also been stated that the complainant has not filed any petition for condoning the delay in filing of the complaint as such the order taking cognizance without condoning the delay is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting under section 169 of the Companies Act. In all the aforesaid five cases cognizance has been taken much after the limitation prescribed under section 468 Cr. P.C. without condoning the delay. As the complainant had not filed any petition for condoning the delay and also because the offence under sections 159 and 220(1) of the Companies Act are not continuing offence, the limitation prescribed under section 468 Cr. P.C. is applicable in the present case. 7. The opposite party No. 2, i.e., the Registrar of the Companies, Bihar has filed a counter affidavit controverting the statement made by the petitioners in his petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners' company is required to file balance sheet and annual....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of K.K. Mehra v. Registrar of companies [1991] 71 Comp. Cas. 669 (Delhi), and secondly the case of State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh AIR 1981 SC 1054. In the case of K.K. Mehra (supra ) the Hon'ble single Judge of Delhi High Court following the dictum of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Suresh Seth [1981] 129 ITR 328^1 held that the provisions extending the fine for every day of default after the first indicate only the multiplier to be adopted in determining the quantum of penalty and do not have the effect of making the defaults in question continuing ones. But Suresh Seth's case (supra) did not find approval in the subsequent Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330^2 and another Supreme Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bench decision in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad v. State A.I.R. 1986 Pat. 254, has also held that failure of the employer to deposit the contribution to employees provident fund was a continuing offence. In this Full Bench decision it has also been held that the failure of the employer to deposit the contributions in contravention of paragraphs 38 and 76 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, read with section 15 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, would be a continuing offence. In this Full Bench it has also been held that even though it is established that the prosecution is beyond the period of limitation and further the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, the court is given power to o....