K.C. Bhanu, J.
1. This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in S. T. C. Nos. 1 of 2001 to 6 of 2001, 94 of 2001, 95 of 2001, C. C. No. 243 of 2001 to 254 of 2001, and C. C. No. 279 of 2001 to 287 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge, Economic Offences Court, Hyderabad.
2. None appears for the petitioner. Perused the grounds of criminal petition.
3. The grounds urged are that the offences are not continuous offences and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation, that the company has its registered office at Nariman Point, Mumbai, and therefore, the court of Economic Offences at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction, that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody for the last 28 months due to criminal prosecution, that the High Court had already seized company property and bank accounts and that the petitioner is sufficiently old and suffered mentally and physically and hence he prays to quash the proceedings.
4. The learned standing counsel for the second respondent contended that the petitioner has not submitted the annual returns as required under subsection (3) of Section 220 of the Companies Act and therefore, he is liable for prosecution. He further contended that the registered office of the petitioner's company is situated at Hyderabad only which was described in the array of parties and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Whether the petitioner's company has its registered office at Mumbai or at Hyderabad is required to be decided by the concerned court and the same cannot be decided at this stage in view of the fact that in the complaint it is specifically stated that A1 is a public limited company having its registered office in the capital of State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. With regard to period of limitation, whether it is continuous offence or not is required to be decided during the trial. The inherent powers can be exercised under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for the following reasons : (1) to carry out the orders passed under this Code, (2) to prevent miscarriage of justice and (3) to secure the ends of justice. Unless the proceedings attract anyone of the aforesaid mentioned reasons, the question of exercising inherent powers does not arise. Since the allegations in the complaint made out prima facie case under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act as the accused fails to submit the annual returns which is an offence punishable under Section 220 of the Companies Act, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed and the interim stay granted on July 12, 2002, is hereby vacated.