REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Vs. FAIR GROWTH AGENCIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five revision petitions have been filed by the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka challenging the dismissal of his complaints against the respondent-company for contravention of certain provisions of the Companies Act, on the point of limitation.

(2.) The respondent-company M/s. Fairgrowth Agencies Limited was incorporated on 25-10-1990. Suspecting its involvement in a security scam, books of accounts, other books and proceedings of the Company for the period from 11-1-1993 to 29-3-1993 were inspected by the Inspecting Officer of the Department of Company Affairs, Madras, during the end of March and the first part of April 1993. On the basis of his report, the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs Southern Region, Madras, wrote to the Registrar of Companies in Karnataka, bringing-to the latter's notice, certain commissions and omissions on the part of the respondent company, in furtherance of which, complaints were filed by the revision petitioner against the Company. Contravention of the provisions of Companies Act alleged in each criminal case and all the concerned criminal revision petition numbers are as follows: A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the accused in each case that the complaint was barred by time. The offences were disclosed at the time of inspection and with regard to the omission and commission of acts of the Company as alleged, a notice had been issued by the Inspecting Authority on 18-2-1993. The reply pf the Company was received on 3-3-1993. Since the explanation of the Company was not satisfactory, a report was submitted by the Inspecting Officer on 15-4-1993 to the regional director of company affairs. It was therefore contended on behalf of the accused in all these cases that, the department had the knowledge of the offence atleast from 18-2-1993 when the notice had been issued by the Inspecting Authority and that therefore the complaints filed on 20-10-1993 were barred by time.

(3.) It is not disputed that every offence alleged is punishable only with fine and the period of limitation for filing the complaint was six months. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that in view of the provisions of Section 621 of the Companies Act, the complaint could be filed only by the Registrar of the Companies and that he having come to know of the commission of the offences only on 14-7-1993 when he received the portion of inspecting report sent by the Regional Director, Department of Company Affairs, the limitation started to run only from 14-7-1993. It was therefore contended that all five complaints were within time. After hearing both the sides, the Learned Presiding Officer, Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore, passed an order in each case on 18-5-2000 holding that atleast the date of notice by the Inspecting Officer, i.e., 18-2- 1993 and the date of reply by the accused to the notice, i.e., 3-3-1993 can be taken as starting point for limitation and that therefore all these complaints were barred by time. Consequently all the complaints were dismissed on the ground of limitation, challenging which these revision petitions have been filed.