Judgment

RAY, J.: - These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 13 August, 1968 of the High Court at Calcutta holding that the memorandum of appeals from an order of acquittal were barred by Article 114 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. The appeals were directed against orders of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta on 4 April 1968. The four petitions of appeal were presented in the High Court on 1 July, 1968 by the learned Advocate authorised by the Vakalatnama executed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal described as the appellant in all the petitions.

3. The Assistant Registrar of Companies. West Bengal filed petitions of complaint before the before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta alleging that the certain officers/directors of the Standard Paint Works (P) Ltd. Of 44 Beadon Row. Calcutta mentioned therein were guilty of offence for noncompliance with provisions contained in the Companies Act, 1956 by reason of default in filing Annual Return of the Company together with the Annual Accounts and Balance sheet Section 210 of the Companies Act requires annual accounts and balance sheet of the Company to be filed within the time mentioned in the section If any person being a director of the company fails to take all reasonable steps to comply with the provisions of Section 210, he shall, in respect of each offence, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. The complainant in filing the petitions of complaint prayed for exemption of personae appearance under proviso to Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 621 (1-A) of the Companies Act .

4. The Presidency Magistrate passed the orders of acquittal in all the cases.

5. Section 417 of the Code d Criminal Procedure speaks of appeal in -case of acquittal. Sub section (3) of that section is as follows:-

"If such an order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court".

6. Section 417 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that no application under sub-section (3) for grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High" Court after the expiry of 60 days from the date of the order of acquittal, No application was made to the High Court in compliance with Section 417 13) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. On behalf of the appellant it was contended both in the High Court and in this Court that the appeals were preferred under Section 624-B of the Companies Act, 1956. Section 624-B is as follows.

"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Central Government may, in any case arising out of this Act, direct any company prosecutor or authorise any other person either by name or by virtue of his office, to present an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court and an appeal presented by such prosecutor or other person shall be deemed to have been validly presented to the appellate Court".

8. The contention on behalf of the appellant that, the right of appeal is conferred by Section 624-B of the Companies Act is unacceptable. Section 624-B only speaks of the Central Government directing or authorising any person to present an appeal from the order of acquittal.

9. Section 417 (1) of the Code E Criminal Procedure enacts that in case of acquittal the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court Section 624-B of the Companies Act empowers the Central Government to present appeals through persons mentioned in that section. Presentation of appeal by the Central Government is a similar provision to Section 417 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

10.