G NATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE groups of applications arise out of three calendar cases nos. 91, 92 and 93 of 1946 on the file of the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Kumbakonam. In o. O No. 91 of 1946 there are nine accused, of whom eight were the directors of a banking company known by the name of the Sankara Ramanuja Sidhantha Paripalana Nidhi Ltd. Kumbakonam and they are being prosecuted for an offence under 8. 282, Companies Act for having wilfully made certain statements false in material particulars knowing the same to be false in the balance sheet of the company for the year ended 81st December 1938. The remaining accused was an auditor of the eaid company. In C. o. No. 92 of 1946 there are seven accused of whom Six were directors and one the auditor and they are prosecuted for a similar offence under 8. 282 Companies Act in connection with the balance sheet foe the year ended 31st December 1939. In o. 0. No. 93 of 1946, again there are nine accused persons of whom eight were the directors and one the auditor and the offence enquired into against them is one under Section 282, Companies Act, relating to the balance aheet for the year which ended with 31st December 1940. Or. M. p. Nos. 1416,1418 and 1420 of 1948 have been filed by the auditor -accused in the three calendar cases to quash the charge framed against him in each of them. Or. M. P. Noa. 1602, 1504 and 1606 of 1948 are by accused 2 in all the three calendar cases for quashing the charge framed against: him under the same Section 282, Companies Act.

(2.) Crl. M. P, NOS, 1666, 1666 and 1667 of 1948 are the three petitions filed by accused 3 in all the three calendar cases for quashing the charge framed against him under Section 282, Companies Act, for a similar offence, Crl. M. P. NO. 1657 of 1948 is by accused 4 and 7 respectively in 0. 0. No. 91 of 1946 for quashing the charge framed against them for the offence under the provisions of B. 282, Companies Act, Crl. M. P. No. 1659 of 1948 is by accused 4 in 0. o. No. 93 of 1946 for quashing a similar charge and crl. M. p. Noe. 1660 and 1661 of 1948 are by the came individual who was accused 6 and 6 respectively in 0. G. Nos. 92 and 93 of 1946 for quashing similar charge framed against him.

(3.) AS all these petitions are connected and intertwined with each other and they arise out of similar transactions it will be more profitable and convenient to deal with all of them by the same order. In fact the learned Counsel appearing in these various cages have agreed on the main outlines of their arguments and the leading argument was by Mr. V. Rajagopalachari on behalf of the auditor accused in the miscellaneous petitions. Toe other learned Counsel while adopting in all essential aspects the arguments of Mr. V. Bajagopalachari have placed before the Court certain further arguments relating to each of the director petitioners separately. It . will be, therefore, useful to give a brief resume of the genesis of the transaction which culminated in the proceedings against the Nidhi concerned of which the various accused were the .directors and the auditor.