High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM
B. Sivandhi Adityan - Appellant
Versus
Additional Registrar Of Companies, Madras - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Petn. Nos. 4784 and 4788 of 1987
Decided On : 18 December 1992
M/s. Ramachandran Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., (for short 'the company') is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), having its registered office located at No. 42, Rajaji Road, Madras-1. Sri Jahanbus Harmushaw Tarapore, Sri Narayanswamy Srinivasan, Sri B. Sivanthi Adityan, Sri Narayanaswamy Ramachandra, Sri K. R. Ramabhadran and Sri K. Ramachandran are the directors of the said company.
2. Under R. 3-A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 (in short 'the Rules'), every Company shall before the 30th day of April of each year deposit or invest, as the case may be a sum which shall not be less than 10 per cent of the amount of its deposits maturing during the year ending on the 31st day of March next following in any one or more of the four methods of investments prescribed therein. The company was stated to have committed defaults in complying with the provisions of R. 3-A thereof in respect of deposits maturing during the years ending with the 31st day of March, 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982. The Directors, who are, in terms of sub-section (30) of S. 2 of the Act, officers of the company, were stated to have committed such defaults knowingly and wilfully and thus rendered themselves liable to punishment under R. 11 for contravention of R. 3-A thereof.
3. A show cause notice was stated to have been issued to the company and its directors bringing to their notice the contravention of the said rule. No convincing reasons were stated to have been given either by the company or its directors for such contravention.
4. The company and its directors were stated to have not only accepted, renewed and held deposits in excess of the prescribed limits but also failed to ensure repayment of such deposits within the time prescribed and thus contravened the provisions of sub-secs. (1) and (4) punishable under sub-secs. (5) and (6) of S. 58-A of the Act.
5. The Additional Registrar of Companies, having his office at 'Shastri Bhavan', 26, Haddows Road, Madras-6 laid two complaints in C.C. Nos. 1291 and 1292 of of 1983 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O, No. 1), Egmore, Madras arraigning the company and its directors as accused 1 to 7 for alleged violations or refractions of R. 3-A punishable under R. 11 of the Rules (former complaint) and sub-secs. (1) and (4) punishable under sub-secs. (5) and (6) of S. 58-A of the Act (latter complaint) alleging that the question of limitation will never arise for consideration as the contraventions complained of are continuing offences.
6. It is represented at the Bar that all the accused excepting Sri B. Sivanthi Adityan (Accused-4) admitted the offences and consequently they were sentenced to fine in a specified amount.
7. Before ever the trial commenced, accused 4 Sri B. Sivanthi Adityan came forward with the present actions to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code').
8. Mr. V. Shanmugham, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused 4 would press into service, in a bid to quash the criminal proceedings the following two points for consideration :-
(1) The prosecutions launched are barred by limitation; and
(2) No show cause notice had been served upon the petitioner-accused 4 and therefore, he could, by no stretch of imagination, be construed as an 'Officer in default' in terms and tenor of S. 5 of the Act.
9. Mr. K. Ilias Ali, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel would however repel those submissions.
10. The period of limitation for taking cognizance of a complaint had been provided for under S. 468 of the Code. The limitation prescribed therefor is relatable to the quantum of sentence for the offences in respect of which prosecution had been launched. The period limitation shall be six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; one year, if the offe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.