An offence under Section 159/162 of the Companies Act is not a continuing offence and is barred by limitation if prosecution is not initiated within six months from the date of default.

( 1 ) THESE revision cases arise out of as many cases under section 159/162 (1) of the Companies Act, 1956 on the complaints made by the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal alleging violation of the provisions of section 159 of the Act. The petitioner company and some of its Officers obtained the present rules for quashing the prosecutions pending against them in different Courts of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. The cases have been heard together and this order shall govern all of them.

( 2 ) MR. Chakrabarti appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all these cases contends that the learned Magistrates erred in law in taking cognizance of the cases without examining the complaint or his witnesses, that the company had been previously given exemption from filing returns due to circumstances beyond their control on account of the Indo-Pak War, that the company is also entitled to exemption for subsequent periods as well, that the company is also entitled to relief under section 633 of the Companies Act and that the prosecution in each case is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE first point taken by Mr. Chakrabarti may be forthwith disposed of upon a reference to section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The obligation on the part of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and the witness present is dispensed with under the terms of the section when the complaint is made in writing by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. In the instant case the complainant is a public servant purporting to act as such.

( 4 ) THE other point urged by Mr. Chakrabarti really touches the merit of the prosecution and the possible defence of the petitioners. That is a question which may conveniently considered at the trial if the proceedings ultimately turn out to be maintainable and competent section 633 may be invoked in appropriate cases by the Court if the conditions for granting the relief to the persons found guilty is made out. It may however, be noted that the section cannot apply to the company itself in respect of any default on its part, but can apply to its Officers. This however is a question which goes to the merit of the case and we do not propose to dwell at length on this aspect of the matter at this stage in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

( 5 ) MR. Chakraborty, however, seems to have a stronger point in support of the prayer for quashing the proceedings. His contention in short is that all the proceedings are barred by limitation. In order to appreciate the point it may be useful to refer to the provisions of section 159 and section 162 of the Companies Act. Section 159 requires every company to file with the registrar the particulars specified in the section in the form of a return within 60 days from the date on which the Annual General Meeting is held. The penal provisions for failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions is contained in section 162 which reads as follows :"section 162 Penalty and Interpretation - (1) if a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in sections 159, 160 and 161, the company and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the default continues. (2) For the purpose of this section and sections 159, 160 and 161, the expressions 'officer" and 'director' shall include any person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the Board of Directors of the company is accustomed to act. "

( 6 ) THE cases out of which the present revisional application have arisen were filed on different dates in the month of November, 1978. The due date of filing of returns was 28th November, of different years from 1967 to 1977. Even the latest in point of time namely, Complaint Case No. 1698 of 1978 (Criminal Revisions No. 922 of 1980) was initiated nearly