P VENKATAKRISHNA REDDY Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused before the trial court is the revision petitioner herein. He challenged the correctness and the legality of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1987, dated October 17, 1987, confirming the said conviction of the accused/revision petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposing a fine of Rs. 5, 000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three more months for the offences under section 209A(5) and (8) of the Companies Act, 1956. THE short facts of the prosecution case as culled out from the records of both courts below are stated as follows : THE revision petitioner along with eight others being the managing director and directors of a private company by name Udaya Pipes and Concrete Products Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its office at Madras and branch at Bangalore, were tried by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for Economic Offences II. On a complaint preferred by the Additional Registrar of Companies, Madras-6, alleging that the first accused/revision petitioner in the capacity of the managing director along with the other accused as directors of the said company failed to produce the account books of the company for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 before the inspecting officer, when he inspected the registered office of the said company from August 1, 1985, and August 3, 1985, and thus has contravened the provisions of section 209A (5) and (8) of the Companies Act. Nor did they produce the account books of the company for the said period. But on completion of inspection one Radhakrishnan, director of the company, gave a letter, exhibit P-1, requesting time till September 10, 1985, to produce the books of account, which was followed by another letter, exhibit P-2, thereby asking time till September 20, 1985. But they have not produced the books of account till October 14, 1986. This was the charge revealed by the evidence of P.W.1, Mr. B. C. Davey, Assistant Registrar of Companies, Madras-6.P.W.-2, Mr. M. Sigamani, senior technical assistant, deposed that basing on the inspection report he issued a show-cause notice under section 209A (5) and (8) of the Companies Act and no reply was received from the company or managing director. THErefore, according to him, the concerned file was transferred to legal section and consequently the complaint above referred to was filed on July 24, 1986, in the court.

(2.) ON being questioned with regard to the incriminating circumstances found against them under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the revision petitioner and others disclaimed any knowledge about the inspection by P.W.-1, but they sent a reply on February 27, 1986, and thereby clearly explained and showed the cause for the non-production of the account books and that, therefore, they had not committed any offence as framed against them. But none were examined on their behalf to substantiate their defence. But they have relied on six documents which were marked as exhibits D-1 to D-6.

(3.) IN the light of the above rival contentions projected on behalf of the respective parties herein the only question which arises for consideration before me is whether the courts below while finding the revision petitioner guilty of the offence charged and tried against him committed any error of law or irregularity in doing so and as such it is liable to be interfered with in this revision "