2022 (6) TMI 176

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioners have been summoned to face trial in complaint case Nos.2114/2019 and 2113/2019 respectively filed under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956. 3. The ground for filing the complaint by the respondent before the ACMM, Special Court, Central, Tis Hazari, New Delhi was that they had not strictly complied with the provisions of Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 as there were discrepancies in their disclosures. 4. In CRL.M.C. 82/2020, the allegation was that the fixed assets were improperly shown in the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31st March, 2008 without factoring the previous year's fixed assets of Rs.1,36,308/- and nil inventory had been declared against the previous year's inventory worth Rs.6,00,000/-. The p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for a term which could extend to six months or with fine which could extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 467 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation prescribed was one year, and as such, the learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences vide the impugned order dated 12th July, 2019 to summon the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in C.K. Ranganathan Vs. Registrar of Companies, 2001 SCC OnLine Mad 914 where the court held that the offence under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 for a default had commenced on 1st April, 1997 and the complaint filed in the year 2000 was barred by time. Hence, it was prayed that the present complaint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case No.2113/2019, the question of limitation was not even addressed by the learned Trial Court. 9. It would have been quite simple for this Court to have considered the question of limitation, but for the fact that both the complaints were accompanied with applications for condonation of delay. While taking cognizance, the learned Trial Court has to apply its mind as to whether the complaint presented was within the period of limitation or not. The learned Trial Court must also consider whether there were sufficient grounds to condone the delay that may have occurred in the presentation of the complaint. But in the two cases at hand, clearly, the learned Trial Court overlooked the filing of the application for condonation of delay. The ....