IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43984 of 2008 Bimal Kumar Nopany, Director of M/s. Eastern Sugar Industries Limited, son of Late Mohan Lal Nopany, resident of 12th Govt. Palace, East Kolkata – 700069 – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Sri J.K. Jodaly, Assistant Registrar of the Company, Bihar and Jharkhand having its office at Mauryalok Complex, 4th Floor, ‘A’ Block, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna – Opp. Parties. … For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Prasad, Advocate. For the State: A.P.P. For opposite party no.2: Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate. 4 17.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This application has been filed on behalf of the Director of M/s. Eastern Sugar Industries Limited for quashing the order, dated 8.10.2004 passed in Complaint Case No. 272C/2004 by the Special Judge, Economic Offence, Patna. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is guilty of offences under section 223 read with section 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner being the Director of the company has to submit his balance sheet within the stipulated time. The petitioner failed to do so which resulted in filing of the present complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure 3 which is the receipt filed by him showing that he has subsequently produced the balance sheet on 30.12.2002. The case was instituted on 8.10.2004 and cognizance was taken on the same day. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint case itself is barred by virtue of the provisions of section 469© of the Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by referring to paragraph 5 of the complaint petition 2 wherein it has been stated that the company was issued a show cause notice to explain the delay in producing the balance sheet and profit and loss account on 31.3.2002. The Managing Director did not respond to the said show cause notice. It is submitted that the complainant had full knowledge of the offence but did not take any step in filing the complaint petition within a reasonable time, rather, the complainant waited for two years before filing the complaint. Therefore, it is apparent that this case would be barred by limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that while hearing the complaint petition, the court below has condoned the delay under section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While condoning the delay no notice was issued to the petitioner. The reasons for condonation is also not apparent from the order impugned. Therefore, this order is bad on these two counts as well. Considering that no notice was issued, no reason has been assigned in the order, dated 8.10.2004 and finally that the petitioner has already paid the fine of Rs.50/- per day, the order of cognizance cannot be sustained. I, therefore, quash the impugned order and this application is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)