MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C. C. No. 876/2001. They have prayed for quashing the proceedings in the above case pending on the file of the Spl. Court (Economic offences), Bangalore. ( 2 ) COMPLAINT was filed by the respondent on 30. 8. 2001 alleging offences punishable under Section 162 of Companies Act, 1956, against four Directors of Petitioners' Company for non-laying of annual Return of the Company in the prescribed form for the year ending 31st March, 2000 before the Annual General Body Meeting of the Company which ought to have been held on or before ( 3 ) 9. 2000 as required under Section 159 of Companies Act. Cognizance of the offence is taken by the Court below. 3. Respondent has filed statement of objection to the Criminal petition. Heard both the advocates. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners' Company had called for the Annual General body Meeting on 30th September, 2000 i. e. within the prescribed period though however the Annual Return and other documents were filed before the Registrar on 18. 1. 2002. He also submitted that the belated Annual Return was received by the respondent after accepting the additional fee of Rs. 4,000/- from the petitioners. According to Sri. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for petitioners, that, acceptance of Rs. 4,000/- as additional fee by respondent amounts to acceptance of the contents of Annual Return as true and correct. The Annual Return depicts that meeting was held on 30. 9. 2000. In other words, he submits that in view of the additional fees charged on the petitioners and which is duly remitted, the return is deemed to have been duly filed and thereby the delay in filing the Annual Return is deemed to have been condoned by the respondent and consequently the accused cannot be prosecuted for failure to comply with the requirements of Sections 159 and 161 of the Companies Act 1956. He further submitted that the "additional fees" can be said to be another form of "fine" and that therefore when once additional fees is accepted, the prosecution could not have been proceeded with. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri. Shanthappa, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that acceptance of additional fee by the Registrar does not absolve the petitioner from the criminal liability. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, Sri. Shanthappa, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that acceptance of additional fee by the Registrar does not absolve the petitioner from the criminal liability. According to him, after filing the above complaint on 30. 8. 2001, the Company filed Annual return on 18. 1. 2002, for the year ending 31st March 2000. Sri Shanthappa prayed that the petition be dismissed in as much as the evidence is necessary to verify the contentions of the petitioners. ( 6 ) ALONG with the memorandum of Criminal Petition, the petitioner has also produced copy of the Annual Return for the year 1999-2000 and a cash receipt evidencing additional fee paid by the petitioners. These documents are not disputed by the respondent's advocate. ( 7 ) THE levy of 'additional fee' by the respondent for acceptance of belated Annual Return is without prejudice to the criminal liability or any other liability of the Directors of the Company as can be understood from the provisions under Section 611 (2) of Companies act. The additional fee imposed by the Registrar does not exonerate the defaulting Company or person from any other liability, either civil or criminal. Where there is belated filing of the Returns and where there is provision to collect "additional fees" and levy fine also for such default, the payment of such additional fee does not exonerate the defaulter from prosecution for the default. As could be seen from the scheme of the Companies Act, it provides penalty for default in filing the documents and returns required by various provisions of the Act. Such default is also a continuing offence for which there is a penalty for every day during which the default continues. In this case, according to the complaint, each of the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 162 of the Companies Act which prescribes fine which may extend to rs. 500/- every day during which default continues. As on the date of lodging complaint, the default was still continuing. Therefore, once default is made, an offence is committed and the same is not wiped out by paying default fee as provided by Section 611 (2) of the companies Act. As aforesaid, Section 611 (2) provides that the payment of additional fee is "without prejudice to any other liabilities. Therefore, once default is made, an offence is committed and the same is not wiped out by paying default fee as provided by Section 611 (2) of the companies Act. As aforesaid, Section 611 (2) provides that the payment of additional fee is "without prejudice to any other liabilities. " The result, therefore, of filing the document on payment of additional fee will only bring and end to the continuing liability, which is incurred by the Company and its officers. But the same will not exonerate them from the liability, which they have already incurred. Levy of 'additional fee' cannot therefore be, equated to and termed as 'punishment' or 'fine'. Thus, there is no illegality in the proceedings of the Court below. ( 8 ) WHETHER the Company has conducted the Annual General Body Meeting on 30th September 2000 or not, has to be ascertained from the evidence that would be collected during the course of the trial. Under such circumstances, I decline to interfere with the proceedings of the Court below. ( 9 ) THE Criminal Petition, therefore is rejected. --- *** --- .