CRL.M.C./26/2007 of B.P. SINHA Vs STATE & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CRL.M.C. 26/2007

B.P. SINHA

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Ms. Ruchira Arora and Mr. Rajan Chawla, Advocates Arora and Mr. Rajan Chawla, Advocates

versus

STATE & ANR.

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Public Prosecutor for respondent-State

Mr. Baldev Malik and Mr. Arjun Malik, Advocates for respondent No.2 Malik, Advocates for respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

% 14.08.2013

For contravention of Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, complaint case No.659/2001 titled Registrar of Companies v. M/s. Cyberspace Limited & Ors. under Section 58A of the Companies Act and Rule 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was instituted by respondent No.2 against petitioner, whose quashing is sought in this petition on the ground that the aforesaid complaint (Annexure P-1) is barred by limitation.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had asserted that the last date for filing of the Returns in respect of Fixed Deposits as per Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975 was 30[th] June,

1994 and the limitation provided for instituting such complaint is of six months and the limitation had expired in December, 1999 whereas the complaint (Annexure P-1) has been instituted in October, 2001 and is thus, clearly barred by limitation.

Mr. Malik, Learned counsel for respondent No.2, had drawn the attention of this Court to complaint (Annexure P-1) to point out that show-cause notice was issued to petitioner- accused on 30[th] August, 2001 and the complaint in question has been filed in October, 2001 and is thus, within the period of limitation.

Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of complaint (Annexure P-1) and the decisions in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Another (1972) 2 SCC 890; Ramnuggar Cane & Sugar Co. Ltd. and others v. Assistant Registrar of Companies 1989 Crl. L.J. 2395; Shree Dharma 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.

Attention of this Court was also drawn by learned counsel for respondent No.2 to decision of 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 1[st] 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 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, show-cause notice of 30[th]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 show-

cause notice of 30[th] August, 2001 was issued to petitioner.

This Court is of the considered view that question of limitation raised in this petition is 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.

AUGUST 14, 2013 s

(SUNIL GAUR) Judge