IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta C.R.R. 1511 of 2022 With CRAN 14 of 2025 M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited & Ors.

Versus Deputy Registrar of Companies, West Bengal For the Petitioners : Mr. Sutapa Sanyal, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya, Adv.

Mr. R.N. Ghose, Adv.

Ms. Pritha Ghose, Adv.

For the Respondent/ROC : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singhania, Adv.

Heard on : 27.11.2025 Judgment on : 27.11.2025 Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. The instant Revisional application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (In short ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. C/4881 of 2019, filed under Section 148(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 (as amended up-to-date) for alleged violation of Section 148(6) of the Companies Act. The said case is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore.

2. The brief facts of the case, essential for proper and effective disposal of this case, are as under:

a. Petitioner no. 1 herein is a company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is an unlisted company, Petitioner no. 2 is the Company Secretary, and Petitioner no. 3 is the Chief Financial Officer of the Petitioner No. 1.

b. The petitioners have come to know that the purported complaint case has been filed against them, alleging violation of Section 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, on the ground that they had failed to file the Cost Audit Report for the Financial Year 2014-15 within the statutory time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of Cost Audit Report. They dispute the allegation in its entirety.

Hence, this Revisional application.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Ms Sanyal, Sr. Counsel led by other counsels representing the petitioners submits that the court complaint filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Calcutta, West Bengal, under Section 148(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, contending that the Cost auditing report submitted for the financial year 2014-2015 beyond the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Section 148(6) of the Act is totally wrong and without verification. Actually, it was submitted within the prescribed time.

4. Learned counsel further clarified from the documents annexed with the petition that they have submitted the Form CRA-4 on 27.07.2016. The Audit report was approved by the Board of Directors on 30.06.2016, and on the very same day, the Cost Auditor duly signed and handed over the report along with its annexures to the company. However, while submitting Form CRA - 4, the date was inadvertently recorded as 19.04.2016, instead of

30.06.2016.

5. At the time of admission of this application, the co-ordinate Bench also satisfied and observed in the order dated 05.05.2022 that it was a clerical error.

6. Ms. Sanyal further submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument, that the Cost Audit report was not filed within the stipulated period of thirty days, the consequence prescribed under section 147(1) of the Companies Act is only a monetary penalty, which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees but may extend to five lakh rupees. The complaint is not maintainable due to the delay of about 3 years, which is far beyond the statutory period of limitation for an offence punishable with fine alone. Section 468 of the CrPC clearly bars any Court from taking cognizance of an offence after expiry of the prescribed limitation period.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite party submitted that the complaint was filed on the basis of their own disclosure in Form CRA-4. In the said form, the date of submission was reflected as 19.04.2016, whereas Form CRA-4 itself was actually filed on 27.07.2016. This, according to the Opposite party, clearly indicates that the date of submission of Cost Auditor report is beyond the prescribed Period of 30 days.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THIS COURT

8. Having heard the arguments advanced by the Learned counsel