SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 82379

MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J
M/S.TELEDATA TECHNOLOGY – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF – Respondent
CRL OP/2836/2015



Offences under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 are continuing offences.

Headnote:

COMPANIES ACT - [SECTION 159, 162, 220, 220(3)] - Continuing Offence - Offences under Section 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 are continuing offences and the bar created under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. will not get attracted as those offences are saved by the provisions of Section 472 of Cr.P.C.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were directors of a company that failed to file annual returns and balance sheets with the Registrar of Companies. The Deputy Registrar of Companies filed complaints against the petitioners for offences under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners filed petitions to quash the complaints on the ground that the offences were not continuing offences and were barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the offences under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 are continuing offences and the bar created under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. will not get attracted as those offences are saved by the provisions of Section 472 of Cr.P.C.

Issues: Whether the offences under Sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 are continuing offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles:- The expression “continuing offence” has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the courts have explained the same in number of judgments.- In the case of a continuing offence, the ingredients of offence continues even after the offence takes place, whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence took place once and for all, in such case, there is no continuance of offence.- For the offence arising out of a failure to comply with a statutory provision, which involves penalty, the liability continues until the default is complied with and on every moment of such non compliance occurs and recurs, there is an offence committed and it is a continuing offence until the default is complied with.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and held that the complaints were not barred by limitation.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders Reserved on

: 20..12..2021

Orders Pronounced on : 11..01..2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN

Criminal Original Petition Nos.2836, 2837 and 5468 to 5471 of

2015

and

M.P.Nos.1 of 2015

1.M.s.Teledata Technology Solutions Limited (A1)

Teledata Tower, First Floor,

37/1, Velachery Tambaram Main Road,

Velachery, Chennai.

2.Sakthivel Natarajapillai (A2)

3.Balasubramanian Krishnamurthy (A3)

4.Jagadish Girish

... Petitioners in all Crl.O.Ps.

-Versus-

The Deputy Registrar of Companies,

Tami Nadu,

Having Office at Shastri Bhavan,

26, Haddows Road,

Chennai 600006.

... Respondent in all Crl.O.Ps.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2836 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.1 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.1 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.2837 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.2 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.2 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.5468 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.4 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.4 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.5469 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.3 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.3 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.5470 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.5 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.5 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.5471 of 2015:- Petition filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for

the records relating to the case in E.O.C.C.No.6 of 2014 pending

on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

E.O.I, Egmore, Chennai and quash the entire criminal proceedings

in E.O.C.C.No.6 of 2014 as against the petitioners.

For Petitioner(s)

: Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy

for Mr.C.Rajan for

petitioners in all

Criminal

Original

Petitions

For Respondent(s)

: Mr.A.Kumaraguru,

SPC for respondent in

all Criminal Original

Petitions

COMMON ORDER

Crl.O.P.Nos.2836, 5469 and 5471 of 2015 have been filed

seeking to quash the criminal prosecutions initiated in

E.O.C.C.Nos.1, 3 & 6 of 2014 for the offence under Section 159

r/w 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter will be called

as “the Act”) pursuant to the complaint filed by the respondent

against the petitioners for having contravened the provisions of

Sections 159 of the Act in not filing the company's annual

returns upto 30.09.2010, 30.09.2011 and 30.09.2012 respectively

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

within 60 days from the date of the Annual General Meeting

(AGM), while Crl.O.P.Nos.2837, 5468 and 5470 of 2015 have been

filed seeking to quash criminal pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top