ANIL MOHAN BANERJEE Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eleven rules raise the common question of law, namely, whether the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted illegally in condoning the application under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the complainant-opposite party provisionally and whether he was also justified on the averments made in the petition of complaint to issue process under section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), against the accused petitioners.

(2.) It appears that on May 20, 1976 the complainant-opposite party No. 1 filed 11 petitions of complaint with applications for condonation of delay for 11 months starting with March, 1973. It was alleged that the accused persons are/were the officers, as directors/secretary of the company at all relevant times and have contravened the provisions of section 418(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, and have rendered themselves liable for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956. It has been alleged in each of the complaint that the books of account and papers of Bata India Ltd. were inspected by an officer authorised by the Central Government under Section 209(4) of the Companies Act, 1956, The inspecting officer submitted a report in October, 1974. In the course of the inspection of the books of account of the aforesaid company serious cases of irregularities in the administration of the provident fund accounts as also several cases of contravention of the provisions of different rules relating to provident fund accounts of the employees as also of provisions of Section 418 of the Companies Act, 1956, were noticed. The said company had created a trust for its managerial staff in the name and style of " The Managerial Staff Provident Fund " and in respect of other employees in the name and style of " The Statutory Provident Fund ". In view of the creation of such trust, the company is bound to collect the provident fund contributions of the employees concerned and pay such contributions as Well as its own contributions to the trustees of the fund within 15 days from the date of collection, as per requirements of Sub-section (4) of Section 418" of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter it was alleged in each of the complaints as to how for each respective month the company, in contravention of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 418 of the Companies Act, has not deposited the contributions of the provident fund within the statutory time as mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section 418 of the Companies Act, 1956.

(3.) It appears that the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate considered the application for condonation of delay and by an order dated May 20, 1976, condoned the delay provisionally with an observation that it would be open to the accused persons to canvass the bar of limitation on appearance. After such provisional condonation of delay he proceeded to take cognizance of the offence on the basis of such complaints and issued processes under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 1956, against the accused persons including the accused petitioner. On the same day he transferred the case to another learned metropolitan magistrate for disposal. After putting in his appearance the accused petitioner took objection before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for stopping the whole proceeding and for his discharge on the ground that the learned magistrate had acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence. Such application was rejected by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the view that there was no question of limitation. It is as against such two orders passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the present rules were obtained.