M.R. PRATAP Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C. 2228/82 on the file of Court of Economic Offences No. II, Egmore, Madras has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same as against him.

(2.) SHORT facts are:

(3.) IN Kathamuthu v. Balammal, (1985 L.W. (Crl) 252) it was held that no court shall take cognizance of offence, after expiry of the period of limitation and Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly bars every court from taking cognizance of the categories of offences in respect of which the periods of limitation are prescribed under Sub -section (2) of that section, after the expiry of such periods of limitation. The bar under Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure is subject to the provisions contained in Section 473, Code of Criminal Procedure Here, the question of resorting to Section 473 does not arise, in as such as that was not sought for before the filing of the complaint. The only question that falls for consideration is whether on the allegations made in the complaint, the complaint is filed within time. The offences alleged are in respect of the balance sheet, as on 31.3.65 and the subsequent balance sheets. The instances enumerated in para 5 on the complaint, relating to non -accounting of the receipts and payments in the books of accounts, are in respect of the period 1964 -65 and 1965 -66. As has been rightly pointed out by Mr. N.C. Raghavachari in the complaint, nowhere there is any allegation that the complaint came to know of the offences at any later point of time, within the period of limitation. It is merely stated in para 10 of the complaint that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation and the limitation does not arise.