Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct. Cases 588/2024
THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Vs.
R.K. KHANDELWAL
01.02.2025
Present : None for the complainant.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of
complainant for condonation of delay in filing the present complaint.
2. It is submitted that present complaint has been filed by the
complainant against the respondents on 22.03.2024 for violation of section
145 of the Companies Act 2013, which as per section 147 of the
Companies Act 2013 is punishable with imprisonment of one year or fine
or both. It is submitted that the inspection of company East Bengal
Investment Pvt. Ltd. was carried out by the office of RD and inspection
report dated 29.05.2020 was submitted to competent authority. It is
submitted that the competent authority had given sanction to the ROC vide
letter dated 23.02.2021 to prosecute the respondents. It is submitted that
due to unavoidable reasons the complaint could not be filed within one year
of sanction as there was inspection drive in the office of ROC and there has
been frequent transfer and posting in the office of the complainant. A
request has been made to condone the delay of 1 years, 6 months and 29
days and to take cognizance on the present complaint.
3. The Ld. Counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the
application seeking condonation of delay. It is submitted that there does not
exist any law for seeking the sanction/ permission for filing the present
complaint by the complainant and even otherwise no such provision of law
has been shown by the complainant during its arguments. Further, it is
submitted that there is no doubt that even before the filing of report of
inspection dated 29.05.2020, the department knew the default committed
by the company and its director. It is submitted that even if the date of
inspection report is to be considered the date for starting the period of
-- 1 of 3 --
limitation, the same expires on expiry of one year i.e. 29.05.2021. It is
submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court in its suo moto judgment i.e. In the
Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction Miscellaneous
Application No. 21 of 2022, In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of
2021, In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 In Re: Cognizance
For Extension Of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No. 29 Of
2022, In Miscellaneous Application No. 665 Of 2021, In Suo Motu Writ
Petition (C) Of 2020 had given 90 days period (starting from 01.03.2022)
to all those litigants, where the period of limitation ends between
15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, to file the litigation, however, the complainant
did not bother itself to file the present complaint even within the extended
time. It is submitted that when complainant did not exercise its right to file
the present complaint within the extended time granted by Hon’ble Apex
Court, they are not entitled to further extension of limitation. A prayer has
been made to dismiss the application and complaint.
4. From the perusal of record and consideration of arguments, the
court is of considered opinion that there does not exist any law for seeking
the sanction of competent authority for filing the present complaint. There
is no doubt that appropriate authorities had knowledge regarding the
default committed by respondents on the date of filing of inspection report
i.e. 29.05.2020 and accordingly, the period of limitation should start from
29.05.2020. When limitation is counted from this date, the same shall
expire on 29.05.2021. No specific reason for not filing the complaint from
30.05.2021 till the date of actual filing nor specific logic or justification for
condonation of delay from 30.05.2021 till the actual date of filing the
complaint has been mentioned by the complainant. Even if a fresh period of
limitation considered to have been started on 01.03.2022 as submitted by
learned Company Prosecutor, the same shall expire on 01.03.2023. No
reasons have been cited for not filing the complaint upto 01.03.2023. The
complainant has also not cited any specific reason for not filing the present
-- 2 of 3 --
complaint within time extended by hon’ble Apex Court vide its Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Supra).
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Partha Ghosh vs ROC in
paragraph no.11 of its judgment has relied upon the previous judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kavi Arora vs ROC, wherein it has been
observed that :
“Thus the time period taken by the Regional Director to
take the decision to direct the Registrar of Companies to
launch prosecution cannot be excluded for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation as both the Regional
Director i.e. the Central Government as well as the
Registrar of Companies was competent to launch
prosecution once they had knowledge of the commission
of the offences as on 24th June, 2013 i.e. when the
inspection reports were filed with either of them. Since
for the offences under Section 211(7), 211(3A), (3B) and
(3C) of the Act, no consent / sanction for prosecution
from the Central Government is required. Section 470(3)
Cr.P.C cannot be relied upon by the respondents.
Admittedly, Section 211 of the Act is punishable with six
months imprisonment and fine. Under Section 468
Cr.P.C- no court shall take cognizance of an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year from the date of offence or the date of knowledge
of the offence. Admittedly, the Inspector submitted his
inspection report on 245th June, 2013 and the said
complaint was only filed on 18th September, 2014 after the
expiry of a year from the date of knowledge of the offence
as provided under Section 468(2)(b)Cr.P.C.
The law with regard to the condonation of delay in criminal
matters is clear, as per which, for taking cognizance after the expiry of
period of limitation, either the reason of delay should be explained or the
complainant should explain that it is necessary to take cognizance in the
interest of justice. However, it has not been explained either in application
or during arguments.
5. In view of above discussion, the present application as well
as complaint are dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
(Mayank Mittal)
ACJM(Special Acts) : Central District:
THC: Delhi: 01.02.2025
-- 3 of 3 --