BHAGABATI PRASAD TANTIA Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision cases arise on applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code and are for quashing all proceedings under Section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. Case No. C/604 of 1978, out of which Criminal Revision No. 115 of 1980 arises, is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Calcutta. Case No. C/786 of 1978, out of which Criminal Revision No. 116 of 1980 arises, is pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Calcutta. In both the cases, on behalf of the petitioners, it was contended before the learned Magistrate that cognizance was wrongly taken as the petitions of complaint were filed beyond the period of limitation. The learned Magistrates negatived the contentions and hence, the Rules. In the first case, the learned Magistrate found that the offence, complained of, is a continuing offence and as such Section 468 of the Code is not applicable. In the other case, it was found on facts that the petition of complaint was filed within the period of limitation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have come up to this court.

(2.) Mr. Balai Ch. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that on the face of the petition of complaint it appears that the same was filed beyond one year after the alleged date of commission of the offence. In both the cases, the complainant wants to take advantage of Section 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC. The said sub-section reads as follows :

(3.) Mr. Roy, in the first place, submits that in both the cases the Asst. Registrar has filed the petition of complaint. It cannot be said, Mr. Roy contends with much emphasis, that an Asst. Registrar of Companies is a person aggrieved by the offence. In order to take advantage of this subsection, it is necessary to establish that the complainant is a person aggrieved. Mr. Roy submits that there is absolutely no reason why an Asst. Registrar of Companies will be aggrieved by the offence. In this connection, Mr. Roy further submits that in order to see whether a person is aggrieved or not it must be established that some personal grief has been caused to him. The allegation in the petition of complaint is that the balance-sheet and P & L a/cs., were not placed at the company's annual general meeting. This being the allegation, according to Mr. Roy, such negligence and/or omission which amounts to an offence cannot cause any grief to the Asst. Registrar. It may cause grief to the shareholders of the company. In support of his contention, Mr. Roy refers to a decision reported in [1978] Cr LJ 116 (Mad) (Sulochana v. State Registrar of Chits, Investigation and Prosecution, Madras). This was a case under the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act and the complaint was filed by the Registrar of Chits (Investigation and Prosecution), Madras. It was held by Natarajan J.