Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2008 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 628 - HIGH COURT OF DELHICognizance of the offence under section 224(7) by Metropolitan Magistrate - Held that:- It is futile on the part of learned counsel for the respondent to invoke section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for more than one reason. The order dated 6-1-2005, of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, nowhere mentions any such contention having been raised by the complainant-Registrar of Companies. The order does not make any reference either to section 468 or 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Secondly, the explanation offered in the complaint is only that the complaint could not have been filed without the prior sanction of the Regional Director, Kanpur, which was received on 9-9-2003. The complaint still does not offer any explanation for the delay in the Regional Director, Kanpur, according sanction although the Department of Company Affairs was made aware of the contravention on 15-6-2002, by M/s. T.S. Kakkar and Co. Further, they had the company’s reply dated 25-11-2002, to the show-cause notice issued to it. The complaint also does not explain the delay of more than one year after the grant of sanction in the Registrar of Companies filing its complaint in the court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. Thus the learned Metropolitan Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under section 224(7) of the Act as it was beyond the period of limitation stipulated under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition allowed.
|