KUMARI SAROJ Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 8 Revision Petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment because the points that arise for determination and the facts relevant thereto are common in all the petitions.

(2.) . The Registrar of Companies filed 8 complaints before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, against a private company called M/s. Chinky Private Limited and five other persons who are alleged to be its directorKs. Four of these complaints were filed under sections 159 and 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the other four under sections 220 read with section 162 of the said Act. The offences were said to have been committed during the years 1961 to 1964, Therefore, one complaint was filed in respect of each one of these years. The allegations made in the complaint were that the company was incorporated on 14th September, 1960, that accused .Nos.2 to 6 were ifs directors and that the company and its directors had not submitted to the Registrar the annual returns required under section 159 of the Companies Act and the balance-sheet and other documents required under section 220 (1) of the said Act within the time prescribed for the filing of said returns d such documents, in spite of notices having been issued to them, and that. therefore, they had committed offences under sections 159/162 and 220/162 of the Companies Act in respect of each of the four years. When the accused appeared before the trial Court and were examined under section 242, Cr. P. C. three of them, namely, Shri Sita Ram, Shri Chuni Lal and Shri 0. P. Bhola pleaded guilty, and the other two accused, namely. H B Lal and Kumari Saroj, pleaded not guiity. Thereupon, the learned Magistrate proceeded to record the prosecution evidence. The prosecution examined only one witness, namely, Shri John Albert, an Assistant in the Office of the Registrar of Companies He stated that the company M/s, Chinky Private Limited was registered on 14th September 1960, that directors of this company were required to file with the Registrar the balance-sheets and profit and Joss accounts of the company as well as the annal returns for the years 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964, and that inspite of notices having been issued to the directors, the said documents were not filed by the company with the Registrar of Companies He Further stated that the company had filed a returned in Form 32 on 5th November, 1960, that this form had been return to the company for correction on 10th November, 1960, and that it was re-submitted duly corrected on 31st October, 1961. He filed Ex. P-1 which was an extract of the original form 32 which had been filed by the company. He also filed Ex. P-2, a true copy of the notice, dated 5th May, 1962, issued by the Registrar to the directors of the company and Ex. P-3 and P-4. which, were the acknowledgements of Ex P-2 by Shri H.B. Lal and Kumari Saroj. He also filed Ex P-5, a true copy of another notice, dated 19th September 1962, issued by the Registrar to the directors of the company, and Ex.- P-6 and Ex. P-7, acknowledgements of Ex, P-5 by Shri H. B. Lal and Kumari Saroj. He also filed Ex. P-2, a true copy of another notice, dated 21st May, 1966, issued by the Registrar to the directors of the company and Ex. P 9, the postal acknowledgement of Ex. P-8 by Shri H B. Lal. Ex. P-8 was not received by Kumari Saroj and Ex P.10 was the envelope containing Ex. P.8 which was sent to Kumari Saroj and which was received back undelivered.

(3.) In their examination under section 342, Cr. P.C., the three accused who had already pleaded guilty, admitted that they were directors of the company, that they had received notices from the Registrar requiring them to file the annual returns and the balance-sheets, etc. and that they tad failed to file these documents with the Registrar One of these accused, namely, O.P. Bhola, in addition stated that due to disputes inter-se beween the directors of the company, no annual general meeting of the company was ever held since its registration in September, 1960, and that the company premises were sealed in March. 1962, under the orders of Shri A.D. Sapra, M.I.C., Delhi under section 145, Cr- P.C , and that there after possession of the company premises was not delivered to the director? of the company but was delivered to the owners of the premises in accordance with the order of Sub-Judge, Delhi, to whom the matter was referred by the Magistrate. He pleaded that as the company did not function, the requisite returns, balance-sheets, etc. could not be filed.