TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.10.2015. The offence under Section 148(8) of the Companies Act may be a continuing offence. However, it cannot be said that the petitioner, who was not in the company when the offence was first committed, is liable merely because he did not rectify the alleged violation during the period when he held the office. The company and the officers, who are in default at the time when the offence was committed, could only be made liable. The persons/accused of an offence cannot be based on the date on which the complaint is filed. The accused would and should remain the same whenever the complaint is filed since the offence is committed on a particular date. Persons who came to know of the offence subsequently cannot be made liable merely bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accused are the whole time Directors of the said company, and the fifth accused is the Chief Financial Officer of the company; that the petitioner/A6 was the Chief Financial Officer from 02.05.2016 to 01.08.2016. The allegation is that the first accused company did not appoint a cost auditor within the time limit prescribed under Section 148(3) and Rule 6(2) of Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 and thereby violated Section 148(6) of the Companies Act punishable under Section 148(8) of the Companies Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not a Chief Financial Officer of the company when the alleged violation took ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. (A-1). Since the appellants were not in the picture at all at the time when the complainant alleges to have spent money in improving the bottling plant, neither can any guilty intention be attributed to them nor can there possibly be any intention on their part to deceive the complainant. No offence of cheating can, therefore, be said to have been committed by the appellants on account of the fact that a notice was given to the complainant that the bottling agreements will not be renewed any further after expiry of the initial term. Thus, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be absolutely true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating as prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steps to rectify the violation, is fallacious. This can be demonstrated. For instance, if the complaint is filed in the year 2020 for the alleged violation that had taken place in the year 2015, can all the officers who were in charge of the company between 2015 and 2020 be prosecuted since the offence is continuing. The answer is 'No'. If such an interpretation is given, the persons/accused in the complaint would be based on when the respondent had filed the complaint. In the instant case, the respondent could have filed the complaint immediately after the violation. If they had filed the complaint immediately, the petitioner would not have been an accused. The persons/accused of an offence cannot be based on the date on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
