SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, I am disposing of these two petitions which involve the same question of law. This case had reached for hearing yesterday; but no one appeared to pursue these petitions. I have gone through these petitions and proceed to dispose of the same.

(2.) The petitioners are being prosecuted on the basis of the complaints filed by the Registrar of Companies for offences punishable under sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act. The petitions have been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the proceedings pending on the basis of the said complaint in the Court of Shri J.M. Malik, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The only point raised in these petitions is that the complaints which have been filed by the Registrar of Companies could not be taken cognizance of by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as the same were barred by limitation. It has been mentioned in these petitions that the offences subject-matter of the said companies were not continuing offences and the complaints having been filed beyond six months of the commission of the offences, the complaints are time barred.

(3.) However, it appears that this plea has not been raised before the Trial Court. Even if assuming for the sake of arguments that the complaints are barred under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, still the complainant could show to the Trial Court under section 473 that the complaints should be entertained and the delay made in filing the complaints may be condoned. In my view, the petitioners should take such plea first before the Trial Court; and if some order is made adverse to 'the petitioners on the said plea, the petitioners can challenge that order by filing any petition in this Court or before the Additional Sessions Judge concerned. It would always involve question of fact whether the complaint which is ex facie time barred should be entertained or not by taking resort to the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In Ram Kripal Prasad & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others (1985) Cr. LI 1648 , a Full Bench of the Patna High Court has clearly laid down that the disputed issue of limitation under sections 468 to 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be appropriately raised directly in the High Court for the quashing of proceedings under section 482. I quote the reasoning given in support of this ratio :