The court emphasized the importance of considering the question of limitation and condonation of delay in summoning the petitioners to face trial.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

1. Though the facts are different in both the petitions, since the issue involved is common, the two petitions are disposed of vide this common order.

2. In both the cases, the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in complaint case Nos.2114/2019 and 2113/2019 respectively filed under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956.

3. The ground for filing the complaint by the respondent before the ACMM, Special Court, Central, Tis Hazari, New Delhi was that they had not strictly complied with the provisions of Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 as there were discrepancies in their disclosures.

4. In CRL.M.C. 82/2020, the allegation was that the fixed assets were improperly shown in the Balance Sheet for the year ending 31st March, 2008 without factoring the previous year’s fixed assets of Rs. 1,36,308/- and nil inventory had been declared against the previous year’s inventory worth Rs. 6,00,000/-. The process of scrutiny took time and it was on 4th September, 2015 that a notice under Section 206(1) read with Section 4 of Companies Act 2013 (sic) was sent. The reply sent by the petitioner dated 26th October, 2015, that the fixed assets could not be shown on account of a scanning error, was found to be not satisfactory. Thereafter, the sanction from the Regional Director for the prosecution was obtained on 27th December, 2017, whereafter, a show cause notice dated 24th August, 2018 was sent to the petitioner. Since the response was not satisfactory, the complaint was filed.

5. In CRL.M.C. 782/2020, the complaint was filed when on scrutiny it was found that the Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account for the year ending 31st March, 2013 and 31st March, 2014 had shown Rs. 7,500/- and Rs. 20,000/- as income from operations, improperly, respectively, without proper disclosures having been made. Scrutiny took time and the order under Section 206(1) read with Section 4 of Companies Act, 2013, calling upon the Company for the explanation was issued on 4th September, 2015. This was replied by the Company on 26th October, 2015. Sanction for prosecution from the Regional Director was obtained on 27th December, 2017. Show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 24th August, 2018, whereafter, the complaint was filed.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offence under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was punishable with imprisonment for a term which could extend to six months or with fine which could extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 467 Cr.P.C., the period of limitation prescribed was one year, and as such, the learned Trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offences vide the impugned order dated 12th July, 2019 to summon the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in C.K. Ranganathan Vs. Registrar of Companies, 2001 SCC Online Mad 914 where the court held that the offence under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 for a default had commenced on 1st April, 1997 and the complaint filed in the year 2000 was barred by time. Hence, it was prayed that the present complaints be dismissed.

7. Both the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla (in CRL.M.C. 82/2020) and, Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj (in CRL.M.C. 782/2020), have argued that the offence under Section 211(7) of the Companies Act, 1956 was a continuing offence and, therefore, there was no question of limitation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Teledata Technology Solutions Ltd. (A1) and others Vs. Deputy Registrar of Companies, 2022 SCC Online Mad 102 in support of this contention. Learned counsel submitted that both the complaints were filed with applications for condonation of delay and when the learned ACMM took cognizance, clearly delay had been condoned, even if the offence was to be treated as not being of a continuing nature.

8. I have heard learned c