[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Yogendra Gangawat vs Union Of India - Thro' Sunita V Langstieh ... on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 624 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
YOGENDRA GANGAWAT
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - THRO' SUNITA V LANGSTIEH - SR. ASST. DIRECTOR
& ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARMISH K SHAH(2438) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARESH J TRIVEDI(927) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present Revision Application has been filed by the
applicant seeking the following relief:
"B. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the
order dated 03.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision
Application No.146 of 2013."
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. The case of the applicant is that the applicant is a
practicing Chartered Accountant and was the statutory auditor
of M/s Welvet Financial Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (now in liquidation). It
is alleged that during the financial year 2004-05, the company
entered into related party transactions and the applicant failed
to discharge his statutory duties under Section 227 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Companies Act, 1956 read with Accounting Standard-18
prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
Pursuant to an order dated 16.05.2008 of the Central
Government, an investigation under Section 235 of the Act was
conducted, and the Inspector submitted his report on
10.01.2011 alleging, inter alia, an offence under Section 227
read with Section 233 against the applicant. Thereafter, sanction
for prosecution under Section 242 was obtained on 16.01.2012,
and an application dated 09.11.2012 was filed by Respondent
No.1 before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Ahmedabad seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint.
The applicant opposed the same on the grounds that the alleged
offence pertained to 2004-05, the application was vague, delay
was not properly explained or quantified, and requisite sanction
documents were not produced. The learned Magistrate, by order
dated 25.02.2013, rejected the application for condonation of
delay holding that the delay was not satisfactorily explained,
particularly in view of the investigation report dated 10.01.2011.
Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred Criminal Revision
Application No.146 of 2013 before the learned Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, who by order dated 03.09.2013
allowed the revision, set aside the Magistrate's order, and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, the
present revision application.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the
learned Revisional Court has committed a grave error in
interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
Trial Court. It is contended that the alleged offence under
Section 227 read with Section 233 of the Companies Act, 1956 is
punishable only with fine, and the complaint has been filed after
an inordinate and unexplained delay. It is further submitted that
the alleged incident pertains to the year 2004-05 and no
documents evidencing the mandatory sanction for prosecution
were produced on record. The application for condonation of
delay filed by the respondent was vague, as neither the delay
was properly quantified nor satisfactorily explained, which was
rightly appreciated by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
while rejecting the same. However, the learned Sessions Judge
has erred in overturning these findings and has exceeded the
scope of revisional jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the
subsequent permission granted to amend the pleadings of the
complainant is impermissible in law. Hence, it is prayed that the
present revision application be allowed.
5. Learned advocate for Respondent No.1 has supported the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and submitted that
the learned Sessions Judge has properly exercised the revisional
jurisdiction. It is contended that the case involves a serious
economic offence and that such offences do not become
redundant merely due to delay. The delay occurred on account of
administrative procedures and receipt of necessary instructions,
and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have considered
the provisions of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
while dealing with the issue of limitation. It is submitted that the
learned Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
application for condonation of delay, which has rightly been
rectified by the learned Revisional Court. Hence, it is prayed that
the present application be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the averments made in the
present application, it is an undisputed and admitted position
that the alleged offence is registered under Sections 227 and 233
of the Companies Act, 1956. While passing the impugned order,
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken into
consideration the fact that the alleged incident came to light on
10.01.2011. Thereafter, sanction was received on 16.01.2012,
and after a further delay of about ten months, on 23.10.2012,
the Additional Director, New Delhi directed the respondent to
consult an advocate, pursuant to which the complaint came to
be filed.
7. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged
incident took place in the year 2004-05. No sufficient reason or
cause has been shown as to why the complaint was filed only on
09.11.2012, resulting in a delay of more than seven years.
8. The learned Magistrate has also taken into consideration
the investigation report submitted in January 2011, and
thereafter noted that delay has occurred. However, the complaint
is silent as to the reasons for such delay, and no sufficient
grounds have been stated for condonation thereof. Moreover, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
learned Trial Court has rightly observed that mere delay is not
the sole ground to dismiss a complaint; however, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, no justifiable cause was
made out to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application
came to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that, in light of Section 469(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the complaint is required to be filed within six
months, which period is to be computed from the date of
knowledge, either from the date of the alleged offence, i.e. 2004-
05, or, at the latest, from 10.01.2011. However, the complaint
has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, and
no sufficient cause has been shown for taking cognizance
beyond the said period.
10. Further, as per Section 468(2)(a) of Cr.P.C., where the
offence is punishable only with fine, the limitation prescribed
applies, and Section 469 of Cr.P.C. provides the commencement
of such period for taking cognizance. It is an undisputed fact
that the alleged offence is punishable only with fine, and
therefore, under Section 468(2)(a) of Cr.P.C., the period of
limitation shall be as under:
"(2) The period of limitation shall be--
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment
for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
11. In view of the above, it appears that the alleged offence is
punishable with fine only, and therefore the period of limitation
is six months. Even if the provisions of Section 470 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, which deal with exclusion of time in
certain cases, are taken into consideration, the present case
does not fall within the ambit of extension of the period of
limitation. Further, the case is not covered under Section 473,
which permits extension of the period of limitation in appropriate
circumstances. The learned Magistrate has, therefore, properly
exercised jurisdiction, and sufficient opportunity was also
granted to the complainant to explain the delay.
12. In view of the above, prima facie, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has exercised
jurisdiction and discretion on sound legal principles. Coming to
the order passed by the Revisional Court, it appears that the
learned Revisional Court has proceeded on the premise that the
offence never dies and that, in light of Section 473 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, cognizance ought to have been taken by
condoning the delay. However, it is well settled that when there
is a statutory bar of limitation, the same cannot be lightly
brushed aside.
13. In the present case, the allegations against the applicant,
who is a Chartered Accountant, are limited to failure to
discharge statutory duties within a reasonable time as an
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
auditor of the company, allegedly constituting an offence under
Sections 227 and 233 of the Companies Act, 1956. There is no
specific overt act or involvement alleged in any embezzlement of
funds so as to categorize the same as a serious economic offence.
14. Further, even upon perusal of the order passed by the
learned Trial Court, it clearly transpires that, apart from the
issue of delay, there was no sufficient material available for
taking cognizance, which reflects due application of mind by the
learned Magistrate. The Revisional Court, however, has primarily
focused only on the aspect of delay and has invoked Section 473
by assigning reasons for condonation, without adequately
addressing the merits considered by the Trial Court.
15. It is also evident that the learned Trial Court did not
dismiss the application in a cursory manner, but upon proper
appreciation of the pleadings and material on record. Notably, in
the operative portion of the revisional order, the matter has been
remanded with liberty to the parties to amend pleadings, which
itself indicates that there was insufficient material on record at
the relevant time and that the Trial Court had rightly
appreciated the same.
16. In revisional jurisdiction, it is not permissible to consider
additional grounds or material which were not placed before the
Trial Court, unless it is demonstrated that the findings recorded
are perverse or contrary to the record. In the absence of such
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/624/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026
undefined
circumstances, interference by the Revisional Court was not
warranted.
17. In a revision application, the Revisional Court is not
expected to appreciate or reappreciate the evidence on record. Its
jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality, correctness, or
propriety of the findings recorded by the Trial Court. While
setting aside such findings, the Revisional Court is required to
indicate the specific illegality or error committed by the Trial
Court and record its own reasons. However, in the present case,
no such findings have been assigned by the Revisional Court for
taking cognizance, particularly in light of the bar under Section
468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as discussed
hereinabove.
18. In view of the settled position of law, including the decision
in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, the
Revisional Court has committed an error. Accordingly, the
present revision application deserves to be allowed.
19. The Revision Application is hereby allowed. The order
dated 03.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.146 of
2013 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
ALI
