MONOJ KUMAR MUKERJEE, J. - (1.) THESE two Rules are for quashing the proceedings of two cases initiated against the petitioners and others under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate Ranaghat, on complaints filed by the Deputy Chief Officer, Department of Non -Banking Companies, Reserve Bank of India.
(2.) THE material allegations in the complaints are as follows: The accused No. 1 is a limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 and the other three accused persons are its Directors and are responsible for all the acts and affairs of the business and accounts of the company. In exercise of its powers under Sections 45J and 45K of the Act, the Reserve Bank of India, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) issued certain directions to Non -Banking institutions, receiving deposits, to control and regulate different activities of such institutions as contained in the Bank's Notification No. DNBC. 21/DG(S) -73 dated August 23, 1973. In terms of paragraph 11 of the said directions, the petitioner company, as a Non -Banking institution receiving deposits, is bound to submit to the Bank its statutory return furnishing the information specified in the schedule thereto with reference to its position as on the dates specified therein, viz. twice a year showing the position as on the 31st day of March and 30th day of September each year, irrespective of the financial year of the company. The returns are required to be submitted by the 30th June and 31st December respectively of that year. The company failed to submit such returns for which all the accused persons are liable for prosecution under S., 58B(2) read with Section 58C of the Act. While one complaint is for returns as on March 31, 1976 and September 30, 1976, the other one is for returns as on March 31, 1977 and September 30, 1977. After entering appearance in connection with the above two cases in obedience to the process issued, the petitioner -company and one of its Directors moved this Court and obtained the present Rules.
(3.) TWO points were canvassed by the petitioners in support of the Rules. It was firstly contended that as the complainant, the Deputy Chief Officer of the Bank, was not duly authorised by the Bank under Section 58E of the Act to file the complaints, the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate erred in law in taking cognisance thereupon, f he second contention was that the cognisance was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In refuting the above two contentions, it was submitted that the complainant was generally authorised in writing, by the Bank, to file complaints under Section 58B of the Act and as such the cognisance was legal and valid. It was next submitted that the offence under Section 58B(2) was a continuing one and in view of the provisions of Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the cognisance was not barred by limitation.;