Back
1980 Supreme(Cal) 56
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
MONOJ KUMAR MUKERJEE, J.
UNITED SAVINGS AND FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD., AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE DEPUTY CHIEF OFFICER, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
Criminal Revn. Nos. 475 and 443 of 1979,
Decided On : 26 -2 -1980
The offense under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 is a continuing offense, and the cognizance of such offenses is not barred by limitation.
Headnote:
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ACT, 1934 - SECTION 58B(2) - POWERS OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA TO AUTHORISE OFFICERS TO FILE COMPLAINTS - SCOPE AND INTERPRETATION - OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 58B(2) AS CONTINUING OFFENCE - ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a limited company and its directors, were accused of failing to submit statutory returns to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as required under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. They challenged the validity of the complaints filed against them, arguing that the complainant, a Deputy Chief Officer of RBI, was not duly authorized to file the complaints and that the cognizance of the offenses was barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Chief Officer was duly authorized by the RBI to file the complaints under Section 58E of the Act and that the cognizance of the offenses was not barred by limitation as the offense under Section 58B(2) was a continuing offense.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Chief Officer of RBI was duly authorized to file the complaints under Section 58E of the Act? 2. Whether the cognizance of the offenses was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 58E of the Act and the relevant notification issued by the RBI to hold that the officers of the rank of the complainant were generally authorized to file complaints under Section 58B of the Act. The court rejected the argument that the authorization was limited to complaints for offenses already committed or in respect of a particular offense. 2. The court relied on the language of Section 58B(2) and the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran to hold that the offense under Section 58B(2) was a continuing offense. The court reasoned that the express language of the section indicated that failure or refusal to comply with the terms of the section created an offense that continued to be an offense so long as such failure or refusal persisted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioners' applications and discharged the rules issued against the proceedings initiated against them.
These two Rules are for quashing the proceedings of two cases initiated against the petitioners and others under Section 58B (2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate Ranaghat, on complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non-Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India.
2. The material allegations in the complaints are as follows :-
The accused No. 1 is a limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the other three accused persons are its Directors and are responsible for all the acts and affairs of the business and accounts of the company. In exercise of its powers under Sections 45J and 45K of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued certain directions to Non-Banking institutions, receiving deposits, to control and regulate different activities of such institutions as contained in the Bank's Notification No. DNBC. 21/DG(S)-73 dated August 23, 1973. In terms of paragraph 11 of the said directions, the petitioner company, as a Non-Banking institution receiving deposits, is bound to submit to the Bank its statutory return furnishing the information specified in the schedule thereto with reference to its position as on the dates specified therein viz. twice a year showing the position as on the 31st day of March and 30th day of September each year, irrespective of the financial year of the company. The returns are required to be submitted by the 30th June and 31st December respectively of that year. The company failed to submit such returns for which all the accused persons are liable for prosecution under S. 58B (2) read with Section 58C of the Act. While one complaint is for returns as on March 31, 1976 and September 30, 1976, the other one is for returns as on March 31, 1977 and September 30, 1977.
3. After entering appearance in connection with the above two cases in obedience to the process issued, the petitioner-company and one of its Directors moved this Court and obtained the present Rules.
4. Two points were canvassed by the petitioners in support of the Rules. It was firstly contended that as the complainant, the Deputy Chief Officer of the Bank, was not duly authorised by the Bank under Section 58E of the Act to file the complaints, the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate erred in law in taking cognisance thereupon. The second contention was that the cognisance was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In refuting the above two contentions, it was submitted that the complainant was generally authorised in writing, by the Bank, to file complaints under Section 58B of the Act and as such the cognisance was legal and valid. It was next submitted that the offence under Section 58B (2) was a continuing one and in view of the provisions of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the cognisance was not barred by limitation.
5. To answer the first point raised by the petitioners it will be necessary to refer to Section 58E (1) of the Act which reads as follows :-
"No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer of the Bank, generally or specially authorised in writing in this behalf by the Bank, and no court other than that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class or a court superior thereto shall try any such offence."
6. To prove his authority to file the complaints, the complainant has stated in the complaints that, by an Order No. 5/ 1975 dated 6th of October, 1975 issued by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, which was published in the Gazette of India, Part III, Section 4 dated the 8th of November, 1975 the Reserve Bank of India delegated the powers to make a complaint, as referred to in Section 58E of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, for an offence punishable under Section 58B (2) and other pr
