ARCOT CITIZEN BANK Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four connected revisions art-sing from prosecutions under the Indian companies Act. 1913.

(2.) THE revision petitioners in Crl. R. C. No. 772 of 1956 were prosecuted for not filing within-21 days after the date of the first or only ordinary general meeting In the year 1952, a complete list of members and summary under Section 32, Clause (3) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioners in Crl. R. O. No. 773 Of 1956 were prosecuted for not filing within 21 days after "the date" of the first or only general meeting in the year 1953 a complete list of members and summary under Section 32, Clause (3) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioners in Crl. R. O. No. 773 of 1956 were prosecuted for not laying the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 1952 at a general body meeting held during the year 1953 as required by Section 131 (1) of the Indian Companies Act. The revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 775 of 1956 were prosecuted for not laying the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year 1953 at a general body meeting held during the calendar year 1954 as required by Section 131 (1) of the indian Companies Act.

(3.) THE facts leading to the institution of these prosecution are as follows; The arcot Citizen Bank Ltd. was registered as a public limited company under the indian Companies Act on 2nd November 1935. It has a registered office in Nos. 48 to 51 Bazar Street, Arcot. Sri. A. E. Chandra-sekhara Nayagar, the second revision petitioner, was the supervising director and the other petitioners were the directors of this bank. On 18th May 1955 the registrar of Companies appointed by the Central Govt. assumed charge of the companies in the State of Madras. A list of members and summary made upto 22nd July 1952 which should have been submitted within 21 days after the date of the first ordinary general body meeting held on that date, was not furnished. An incomplete list was received on 30th august 1952 by the Assistant Registrar of Joint stock Companies, Vellore, along with a covering letter, Ex. P. 2, signed by accused 2 as the supervising director of the said bank. This was returned for rectification and complete furnishing of information, as required under law. But in spite of several reminders a completed correct list was not submitted and there was no compliance with Section 32 of the indian Companies Act.