T G KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Criminal Original Petitions are filed to quash the prosecution launched against the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused in E.O.C.C. Nos.247 to 258 of 2004 by the respondent herein pending on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences-II), Egmore, Chennai.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the averments made in all the complaints are: That the petitioner is the Managing Director of the first accused company viz., M/s. Gangappa Paper Mills Limited, Chennai-21. As per Section 220 of the Companies Act, the first accused company and its Directors are under statutory obligation to file with the respondent herein/complainant, three copies of Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in the prescribed format within 30 days of placing the same in the Annual General Body Meeting and in case no Annual General Body Meeting was held, within 30 days of the due date of the said meeting. It is further averred in the complaint that the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account pertaining to the first accused company for the financial years 1991 to 2000 respectively, have not been filed and thereby the statutory requirements contemplated under Section 220 of the Companies Act 1956 have been violated. It is also averred in the complaint that in spite of issuance of show cause notice dated 02.04.2002 by the respondent/complainant to the petitioner/accused No.2, in his capacity as the Managing Director of the first accused company, having not chosen to comply with it and as per Section 162 of the Companies Act, every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs.50/- for every day during which, the default continues. THE respondent/complainant specifically averred that the offence is a continuing one within the meaning of Section 472 of Cr.P.C. and hence the complaints are not barred by limitation.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily placed reliance upon the following decisions to substantiate his contention. 1. (Volume 97) Company Cases 500-NEPC India Limited and others vs. THE Registrar of Companies. 2. 2001 - 2- L.W. (Crl.) 656 - V.Karthikeyan, T.L.Pragasam vs. THE Registrar of Companies. 3. 2007-2-L.W.(Crl.) 606 - N.Kumar vs. M.O.Roy, Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Company Affairs, Government of India, Paravarna Bhavan, New Delhi.