Joymalya Bagchi, J. - (1.) PROCEEDING in Complaint Case No. C/4239 of 2003 pending before the learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata under Section 628 of the Companies Act has been assailed in this revision petition.
(2.) THE prosecution case, as alleged in the petition of complaint, is to the effect that an inspection was carried out in respect of the books of accounts and other records of the accused company. Pursuant thereto, a show -cause notice dated 12.02.1998 was issued upon the said accused company alleging that the company had an outstanding liability towards the depositors to the tune of Rs. 104,01,435/ - as on 31.03.1997. Information was sought for from the accused company as to how it would arrange to pay back its huge liability to depositors and what would be the source of funds to make such payment. The company, inter alia, responded that the said liability was a book liability. In the opinion of the inspecting officer such version of the company was incorrect and if the said liability was construed to be a book liability it would amount to admission on the part of the company and that there was incorrect and inaccurate figure stated in its books of accounts which constituted an offence under Section 628 of the Companies Act. The reply of the company to the aforesaid show -cause notice was received by the Registrar of Companies on 25.02.1998 and the same was construed to be not maintainable in law. With regard to the aforesaid accusation a complaint dated 30th July, 2003 was filed before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case before the leaned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata.
(3.) MR . Bandyopadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that offence came to the knowledge of the complainant on 25.02.1998 when the reply filed by the accused company was found to be not maintainable in law. Offence under Section 628 of the Companies Act is punishable with two years imprisonment. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed within three years from the date of its commission or knowledge thereof. The impugned prosecution was, however, instituted after five years and was barred by limitation. He accordingly prayed for quashing of the proceeding.;