Anil Dev Singh, J.

( 1 ) THESE revisions are directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated January 30, 1996 whereby the appeals against the order dated July 17, 1995 of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi convicting the revisionist under section 162 read with section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short the Act ) were dismissed.

( 2 ) THE Registrar of Companies filed complaints against the petitioner, Shri Moti Lal Bhatia and Smt. Suman Bhatia, Directors of M/s. Nirman Chit Fund Private Ltd. in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on June 11, 1992 under sections 159 and 162 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner and the abovesaid two others did not submit the annual returns and balance sheets of the company, M/s. Nirman Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 within the prescribed period, thus flouting the provisions of sections 159, 220 read with section 162 of the Act. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that it was the petitioner alone who was liable for the default in submitting the annual returns and balance sheets for the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. In respect of the year 1990-91, Shri Moti Lal Bhatia and Smt. Suman Bhatia were held liable for the default in filing the annual return and balance sheet. Accordingly, the petitioner was sentenced to pay Rs. 2000. 00 as fine in each of the six cases relating to the years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. In default of payment of fine, she was required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month in each case. Accused Moti Lal Bhatia and Suman Bhatia were to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 each in the two cases relating to the year 1990-91. In default of payment of fine, they were required to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The petitioner not being satisfied with the order passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, filed six appeals before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As already pointed out these appeals came to be dismissed on January 30, 1996.

( 3 ) SECTION 159 of the Act provides that every company having a share capital shall, within 60 days from the date on which each of the annual general meeting is held, prepare and file with the Registrar an annual return containing the specified particulars. Section 162 inter-alia of the Act lays down that if a company fails to comply with section 159 of the Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 50. 00 for every day during which the default continues. Section 220 of the Act lays down that three copies of balance sheet and profit and loss account shall be filed by the company within 30 days from the date on which the balance sheet and the profit and loss account were laid at the annual general meeting of the company. Sub-section 3 of Section 220 provides that if default is made in complying with the requirement of sub-sections 1 and 2, the company and every officer of the company, who is in default shall be liable to the like punishment as is provided by section 162 for a default in complying with the provisions of section 159. In the event of non-compliance of sections 159 and 220 of the Act, the company and every officer thereof who is in default are punishable with a fine which could extend to Rs. 60. 00 for each day during which the default continues under Section 162 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the complaints against the petitioner were barred by limitation. It is pointed out that the petitioner had resigned as a Director of the company on December 12, 1990 while the complaints were filed on June 11, 1992. It was canvassed that the offences under sections 159 and 220 of the Act being punishable with fine, cognizance of the complaints after a period of six months from the commission of the offence as provided in section 468

Click Here to Read the rest of this document