Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 859 - HC - Companies LawInitiation of prosecution proceedings - Period of limitation from the date of knowledge of offense - Statutory Auditors (CA) under the Companies act - offence under Section 233 read with Sections 227(2) and 227(3)(d) of the Companies Act - petitioner by profession is a Chartered Accountant - It is contended that, the offence is punishable only with a fine, therefore, from the date of knowledge of the offence i.e., 24.06.2013, the complaint should have been filed within six months, however, in the instant case, it was filed on 10.07.2014, hence, it is barred by limitation. HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the violation alleged in the complaint is punishable only with a fine as per Section 233 of the Companies Act. As per Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., there is a bar in taking cognizance of an offence specified in sub-Section 2 of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., after the expiry of the period of limitation. As per sub-Section (2) (a) of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., the period of limitation for the offence punishable with a fine is only six months. In the decision of Kavi Arora [2015 (9) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it has been decided that, "The offences in the present case are not continuing in nature, limitation commenced as per Section 469(1)(b) Cr.P.C. when actionable knowledge was gained by the competent authority i.e. when the Registrar of Companies had knowledge of the commission of the alleged offences, i.e. 24th June, 2013 when the Registrar of Companies received the report of the Inspector and ran out on 23rd June, 2014 and thus the complaint, which was admittedly filed on 18th September, 2014 was hopelessly barred by limitation. There is no provision under the Act whereby any consent/sanction of the Central Government is required for prosecution of the offences under Section 211(7), 211(3A), (3B) and (3C) of the Act." The controversy involved in the instant case has already been settled. Arguments similar to the ones made in the present case have been rejected by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in its decision in Kavi Arora [2015 (9) TMI 1742 - DELHI HIGH COURT] To that extent this court is bound, therefore, there is no reason to take a different view and hence, the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents to refer the matter to the Division Bench is also liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned summoning order dated 10.07.2014 and other consequential proceedings emanating thereto are accordingly quashed.
|