HELEN RUBBER INDUSTRIES KOTTAYAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The refusal by the learned District Magistrate, Ernakulam, to exempt the personal attendance of the accused in some cases under the Companies Act that came before him has resulted in these revision petitions. The petitioners before me were proceeded against for non submission of the returns and balance sheet for offences under S.159, 162, 614A, 220(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act. Against most of them there are two cases for two separate offences. In all these cases, except one, they indicated their intention to plead guilty and receive sentence. The proper exercise of discretion in these cases, in the interests of justice and expeditious disposal of cases, would have been to exempt personal attendance of the accused, accept the plea of guilty and impose such sentence as the Court felt necessary in the circumstances of the case. The learned District Magistrate thought otherwise. Hence I am constrained to consider the question involved in some detail and lay down the procedure to be adopted in similar cases.

(2.) All the petitioners are Directors of their respective companies. Some of them are ladies and some old, residing in various parts of the State.

(3.) The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code relevant for the disposal of these petitions are, S.205, 353 and 540A. It will be useful to extract these sections.