P.C Barooah, J.:— On the basis of a complaint filed by the Assistant Registrar of Companies on October 19, 1976, in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, the petitioners, who are directors of Lahiris Architectural Industries (P.) Ltd., of 12/2, Clive Row, Calcutta, are being prosecuted in case No. C/No. 4888 of 1976 under s. 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, for not laying at its annual general meeting held on June 27, 1975, the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the financial year ending on December 31, 1974. In this application, the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings pending against them in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate be quashed inasmuch as the complaint was filed beyond the period of one year.
2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Jitendra Nath Bose, learned advocate for the petitioners, that the offence was complete on June 27, 1975, and an application under s. 473 of the Cr. PC for condoning the period of limitation not having been filed, the proceedings are barred by limitation under the provisions of s. 468(2)(b) of the Code.
3. It is further submitted that the Registrar of Companies is not the person aggrieved and the knowledge of the Registrar is immaterial in computing the period of limitation.
4. We find no substance in the arguments of the learned advocate for the petitioners. Under s. 621 of the Companies Act read with s. 2(40) of the Act, the Asst. Registrar of Companies was a person competent to file such a complaint. That being so, the Asst. Registrar of Companies was the person aggrieved in the instant case.
5. According to para. 3 of the petition of complaint the fact that the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the year ending December 31, 1974, were not filed (sic) in time came to the knowledge of the complainant-opposite party for the first time from the annual return filed by the company on October 23, 1975, and finally from the certified copy of the proceedings of the annual general meeting filed in the office of the complainant on February 23, 1976. As such the petition of complaint was in time in accordance with s. 469(1)(b) of the Cr. PC.
6. The application is thus dismissed and the rule is hence discharged.
7. A.N Banerjee, J.:— I agree.