B.P. Sinha v. State & Anr.

(1972) 2 SCC 890; Ramnuggar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd. and others v. Sugar Industries (P.) Ltd. and Others v. Registrar of Companies 1989 Vol.66 CC 337; S.P. Punj and Others v. Registrar of Companies 1991 Vol.71 CC 509; Webcity Infosys Ltd v. Registrar of Companies (Delhi & Haryana) 2007 (98) DRJ 710 and Jiyuan Li and Tianjin Tianshi India P. Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies (2012) 171 CC 280 relied upon by petitioner's counsel, I find that the offence purportedly committed by petitioner is punishable with fine only and so, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the period of limitation is of six months. As per Section 469 of Cr.P.C., commencement of period of limitation shall be from the date of offence or when the commission of offence is not known, then, from the first day when the commission of such offence comes to the knowledge of the complainant, and as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C., court can extend the period of limitation in certain cases. CRL.M.C. 26/2007 Page 3 Attention of this Court was also drawn by learned counsel for respondent No.2 to a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Khulood Impex Private Limited & Ors. v. The Registrar of Companies in Crl.M.C. No.2730/2009 rendered on 1st March, 2012 to point out that the period of limitation commences from the date when the offence comes to the knowledge of complainant. On the other hand, petitioner's counsel had relied upon the afore-noted decisions to assert that non-submission of Returns within the prescribed period, which is punishable under Rule 10 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, is not a continuing offence and so, the period of limitation shall commence from the date of the offence. It is common knowledge that the alleged offence does not immediately comes to the knowledge of respondent No.2 on the last date of filing of such Returns and so, it cannot be said that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the offence. Now, it is to be seen as to when it had come to the knowledge to respondent No.2 that the alleged offence has been committed by petitioner. According to learned counsel for respondent No.2, as soon as it came to the knowledge of respondent No.2 that petitioner has violated Rule 10 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, a show-cause notice of 30th August, 2001 was issued and so the date of commencement of limitation ought to be computed from August, 2001 and if it is so done, then the complaint in question is within limitation. However, it is not stated in so many words in the complaint (Annexure P-1) that as soon as respondent No.2 came to know about the alleged violation of Rule 10 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 by petitioner, immediately a show- CRL.M.C. 26/2007 Page 4 cause notice of 30th August, 2001 was issued to petitioner. This Court is of the considered view that question of limitation raised in this petition is a mixed question of fact and law which ought not be determined while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the question of limitation is left open to be considered at trial. Needless to say, if respondent No.2 still realizes before the commencement of the proceedings before the trial court that an application under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. is to be filed before the trial court, then, there is no impediment for respondent No.2 to do so and the said application, if filed at all, would be also considered by the trial court at the stage of framing of notice. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of while refraining to comment on the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge AUGUST 14, 2013 s