TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 113 of the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act') on the ground that share certificates were not despatched within two months. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and the then Nilgiris, took the case on file as C.C. No. 371 of 1992. The respondent/accused filed interlocutory application in Crl. M.P. 2007 of 1992 alleging that the offence under section 113 of the Act is punishable with fine only and therefore, the complaint ought to have been lodged within six months from the date of the offence. 3. There revision petitioner filed a counter stating, the accounts of the first respondent-company was inspected by the revision petitioner on 20-7- 1992 and only on that date, he came to know about the lapse and the complaint was lod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint was filed on 28-8-1992. 6. It is contended that the first accused is the company. The second accused is the Managing Director and the third accused is the secretary. It was submitted, the prosecution case had been filed under section 113(2) by the Registrar of Companies as if he is the aggrieved party. The Registrar of Companies is an aggrieved party in respect of offences which fall under sections 159,165, 166,210 and some other sections of the Companies Act and so far as the offence under section 113(2), the Registrar of Companies is not the aggrieved party. If at all there is any aggrieved party, it is only the shareholders and as already stated, none of the shareholders had sent any application to the CLB that he has not recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only on 20-7-1992. In other words, the Registrar of Companies got knowledge of the lapse only on 20-7-1992, viz., the date on which the inspection was conducted and after issuing a show-cause notice on 20-8-1992, the complaint was filed on 28-8-1992 within a period of six months. It was also stated that A-1 and A-3 in their reply notice dated 25-8-1992 had admitted the delay in despatching the transfer share certificate within the pre- scribed period of two months. Therefore, the complaint filed is not barred by limitation. It was further contended as per section 621 of the Act, offence against the Act are cognizable only on the complaint by the Registrar of Companies and in the present case, the Registrar of Compa-nies had filed the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny to make good the default within such time as may be specified in the order; and any such order may provide that all costs 'of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the company or by any officer of the company responsible for the default." 11. A reading of the abovesaid section makes it clear that on the applica-tion of the person entitled to have the, certificates or the debentures delivered to him within the prescribed time alone, an order directing the company and any officer of the company shall be made to make good the default within such time as may be specified by the Registrar of Compa-nies. It was pointed out that no prejudice or loss was caused to the CLB and since the shareholder had sent an application, the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
