Skip to content


Sushil Kumar Lahiri and ors. Vs. Registrar of Companies - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany;Criminal
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Case No. 687 of 1978
Judge
Reported in[1983]53CompCas54(Cal)
ActsCompanies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(40), 210(5) and 621; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 468(2), 469(1) and 473
AppellantSushil Kumar Lahiri and ors.
RespondentRegistrar of Companies
Appellant AdvocateBiren Mitter, Adv. for ;Public Prosecutor;Jitendra Nath Bose, Adv.;Asit K. Goswami, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ.N. Ghose and ;Anjan Kumar Mukherjee, Advs.
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....application under section 473 of the cr. pc for condoning the period of limitation not having been filed, the proceedings are barred by limitation under the provisions of section 468(2)(b) of the code. it is further submitted that the registrar of companies is not the person aggrieved and the knowledge of the registrar is immaterial in computing the period of limitation. 3. we find no substance in the arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioners. under section 621 of the companies act read with section 2(40) of theact, the asst. registrar of companies was a person competent to file such a complaint. that being so, the asst. registrar of companies was the person aggrieved in the instant case. 4. according to para. 3 of the petition of complaint the fact that the balance-sheet and.....
Judgment:

P.C. Barooah, J.

1. On the basis of a complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies on October 19, 1976, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the petitioners, who are directors of Lahiris Architectural Industries (P.) Ltd., of 12/2, Clive Row, Calcutta, are being prosecuted in case No. C/No. 4888 of 1976 under Section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, for not laying at its annual general meeting held on June 27, 1975, the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the financial year ending on December 31, 1974. In this application, the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate be quashed inasmuch as the complaint was filed beyond the period of one year.

2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Jitendra Nath Bose, learned advocate for the petitioners, that the offence was complete on June 27, 1975, and an application under Section 473 of the Cr. PC for condoning the period of limitation not having been filed, the proceedings are barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468(2)(b) of the Code. It is further submitted that the Registrar of Companies is not the person aggrieved and the knowledge of the Registrar is immaterial in computing the period of limitation.

3. We find no substance in the arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioners. Under Section 621 of the Companies Act read with Section 2(40) of theAct, the Asst. Registrar of Companies was a person competent to file such a complaint. That being so, the Asst. Registrar of Companies was the person aggrieved in the instant case.

4. According to para. 3 of the petition of complaint the fact that the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the year ending December 31, 1974, were not filed (sic) in time came to the knowledge of the complainant-opposite party for the first time from the annual return filed by the company on October 23, 1975, and finally from the certified copy of the proceedings of the annual general meeting filed in the office of the complainant on February 23, 1976. As such the petition of complaint was in time in accordance with Section 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC.

5. The application is thus dismissed and the rule is hence discharged.

A.N. Banerjee, J.

6. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //