Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Sachidanand Chitala v. Registrar of Companies
Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No. 36348 of 2022, 36749 of 2022, 36752 of 2022, 36754 of 2022 and 36756 of 2022 (Gwalior); Decided on 7.11.2022
Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 482 -- Companies Act, 1956 -- Ss. 162 and 220 -- quashing of criminal proceedings -- alleged non-compliance committed much after petitioner resigned -- no case made out against petitioner -- long drawn proceedings tantamount to punishment when prima facie no case is made out -- case of petitioner already considered by concerned authority SEBI and findings given twice in favour of petitioner -- petition allowed -- proceedings quashed. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and (2013) 3 SCC 330 followed. (2012) 5 SCC 424 and 2017 (3) JLJ 325 referred to.
[Paras 17, 20, 21 & 24
naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 && daiuh vf/kfu;e] 1956 && /kkjk 162 rFkk 220 && nkafMd dk;Zokgh dk vfHk[kaMu && ;kph ds R;kxi= ds dkQh ckn vfHkdfFkr vuuqikyu fd;k x;k && ;kph ds fo#) ekeyk fl) ugha && izFken`"V~;k dksbZ ekeyk fl) ugha gks rc yacs le; rd pyus okyh dk;Zokgh naM ds leku gksrh gS && ;kph ds ekeys ij igys gh lac) izkf/kdj.k lsoh }kjk fopkj fd;k tk pqdk rFkk nks ckj ;kph ds i{k esa fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k && ;kfpdk eatwj && dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMrA 1992 lIyh- ¼1½ ,l lh lh 335 rFkk ¼2013½3 ,l lh lh 330 vuqlfjrA ¼2012½5 ,l lh lh 424 rFkk 2017 ¼3½ ts ,y ts 325 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 17] 20] 21 ,oa 24
ORDER
1. Regard being had to the similitude of controversy, these petitions are heard analogously and decided by this common order. For convenience's sake, facts as narrated in MCRC No.36348/2022 are taken into consideration.
2. A tabular representation of different petitions with alleged violation by petitioner and their brief particulars is given for ready reference :--
| Sr. No. | Case Number | Violation alleged by respondent | Relevant Year | Brief particular about offence |
| 1. | MCRC No.36752/2022 | Allegation of violation section166 readwith 159 of Companies Act which is punishable under section 162 of Companies Act, 1956 | 2008-2009 2009-2010 | Allegation is non-submission of annual return and holding of annual general meeting in the relevant year. |
| 2. | MCRC | Allegation of violation section129 readwith 137 of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under section 129 (7) and 137(3) of Companies Act, 2013 | 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 | Allegation is non-submission of financial statement within the stipulated time with Registrar of Companies. |
| 3 | MCRC No.36754/2022 | Allegation of violation section12(1) of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under section 12(8) of Companies Act, 2013 | 2014 | Allegation is of not having registered office capable of receiving and acknowledging the communication. |
| 4 | MCRC No.36756/2022 | Allegation of violation section 96 read with 129 of Companies Act, 2013 which is punishable under section 99 of Companies Act, 2013 | 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 | The AGM has not been held proceedings has not been forwarded to Registrar. |
3. Perusal of table indicates violation of different provisions of Act, 1956 as well as Act 2013 and the relevant years.
4. The present petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner taking challenge to the complaint filed / prosecution lodged at the instance of the Registrar of the Companies for alleged violation of different provisions of the Companies Act, 1956/Companies Act, 2013.
5. Precisely stated facts of the case as represented in MCRC No.36348/2022 are that the petitioner was earlier one of the Directors of M/s. Sterling Kalks Sand Bricks Limited (hereinafter referred as Company) between the period 30th September, 1992 to 13th March, 1995. On 13th March, 1995, petitioner resigned and no longer continued to remain as Director of the Company thereafter.
6. In the year 2011, complaint was filed by respondent with the allegations that the Company and its Directors including the present petitioner were guilty of offence as contained in section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 because of non-compliance of section 220 of the Act, 1956 for period in year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. It was the allegation that Company has not submitted a balance sheet and profit and loss account of that period. Therefore, company and its Directors were guilty of such non-compliance.
7. Since the petitioner resigned as Director of the Company w.e.f. 13.3.1995, thereafter, when petitioner as accused (in summon's case) appeared before the Trial Court then moved an application under section 239 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. It was the contention of petitioner in the said application that he resigned in the year 1995 as referred above and in support of submissions, he filed certified copy of acceptance of resignation by the Registrar of the Companies. Therefore, on the strength of such documents, it was his submission that he may be discharged because at the relevant point of time, he was not at the helm of affairs in any capacity in the Company. He also referred the proceedings of Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred as S.E.B.I.) vide proceedings dated 9.9.2004 in which concerned authority considered this aspect and came to the conclusion that since petitioner is no longer
The nature of the offenses and the prescribed penalties determine whether the offenses are continuing or one-time, and the applicability of limitation periods. Prosecutions under the repealed 1956 Ac....
The court affirmed that non-compliance with regulatory provisions constitutes a continuing offence, extending prosecution limitations under the Companies Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
