Court :
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Brief :
Citation :
Kishan Prasad Palaypu
v.
Registrar of Companies
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Kishan Prasad Palaypu
v.
Registrar of Companies
A. GOPAL REDDY AND G. YETHIRAJULU, JJ.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1338 OF 2003
November 23, 2006
Section 220 of Companies Act 1956, read with sections 468 and 472 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Balance sheet - Default in filing copies of - Whether contravention of section 220 (1) made punishable under section 220(3) is a continuing offence and period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of Code does not attract prosecution launched against company for offence alleged and is governed by section 472 of Code - Held, yes
FACTS
The petitioner, was a director of the company ‘P’, alongwith another director. There were prosecuted under section 220 for their failure to file return, annual accounts and audited balance sheet required to be laid before the annual general meeting. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence filed by the complainant and issued process. Thus, the petitioner moved the Court under section 482 of the Code for quashing the proceedings contending that the complaints filed were barred by limitation.
HELD
Once section 162(1) imposed penalty at the rate of Rs. 50 for every day till the default continues, it must be held default in complying with the provisions of section 220(1) is a continuing default covered by section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [Para 20]
The contravention of section 220(1) made punishable under section 220(3) is a continuing offence and the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of the Code does not attract the prosecution launched against the company for the offence alleged and is governed by section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [Para 21]
CAclubindia
