SATISH KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALLA Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition of complaint was filed by opposite party No. 1, the Registrar of Companies, West Bengal, against the accused-petitioner, Satish Kumar Jhunjhunwalla, and two other persons under Sections 58A(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act " for the sake of convenience), read with Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. The averments in the petition of complaint were that it appeared from the return submitted by M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd. under Rule 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975, ("the Rules", for short) as on March 31, 1982, filed in the office of the complainant on January 21,1983, that the total amount of deposits of the kinds referred to in Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules was Rs. 1.92 lakhs against the total amount of Rs. 1.31 lakhs, being the aggregate of the paid-up capital and free reserves reduced by the accumulated loss, deferred revenue expenditure, etc., as arrived at on the lines indicated in the Explanation to Rule 3 of the Rules. These deposits to the tune of Rs. 1.92 lakhs were in contravention of Rule 3(2)(ii) of the Rules far exceeding 25% of the aggregate of the paid-up share capital and free reserves of the company, M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd., of which the petitioner-accused and the two other accused persons mentioned in the petition of complaint were the officers/directors at the relevant time. On the basis of these allegations in the petition of complaint, which was filed on July 20, 1983, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, an order was passed by the learned Magistrate for issuing summons to the accused persons. Subsequently, a petition was filed in the court of the learned Magistrate by the petitioner for dropping the proceedings on the ground that the case was barred by limitation as well as on the further ground that opposite party No. 1 failed to implead the company as a party to the petition of complaint.

(2.) This petition filed for the accused petitioner was disposed of by the learned Magistrate who was pleased to reject the prayer of the petitioner. Thereafter, the present revisional application, heard as a contested application, has been filed by the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Mukherjee, the learned advocate for the accused-petitioner, has argued that the proceedings are to be quashed as the company, M/s. Victory Iron Works P. Ltd., has not been joined as a party in the petition of complaint. In support of his contention, Mr. Mukherjee has referred to the cases of Maya Chandra v. Inspector, Minimum Wages Office, [1979] Cr LJ 534, State of Madras v. C.V. Parekh, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, Mr. Mukherjee has also referred, in this connection, to another decision in the case of Krishna Trading Co. v. State of Bihar [1979] Cr LJ 760. The second contention of Mr. Mukherjee is that the case is barred by limitation.