URMILA JINDAL Vs. REGISTRAR COMPANIES U P KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. The applicants by means of the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. seek quashing of the proceed ings of complaint case No. 5081 of 1981- Registrar of Companies U. P. v. Jindal and Jindal Pvt. Ltd. , which is pending in the Court of C. M. M. Kanpur.

(2.) THE Registrar of Companies, U. P. Kanpur filed a criminal complaint dated 2-7-1981 against Jindal and Jindal Pvt. Ltd. and its ten directors for their prosecution under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the Company and its directors were under statutory obligation to file with the Registrar of Companies, U. P. the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account in the prescribed form duly placed in the Annual General Meeting of the Company within thirty days of the holding of the meet ing and as in the present case no such meet ing was held within thirty days of the due date of Annual General Meeting. THE ac cused in spite of repeated notices, knowing ly and willfully committed default in not filing the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account and had thereby committed con tinuing default. THE learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and sum moned the accused to face trial.

(3.) IT may also be pointed out here that in the affidavit filed in support of the peti tion, it has not been stated by the applicants that no Annual General Meeting of the Company was held in the relevant year. Paras 8 and 9 of the affidavit which have been relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his submission are absolutely vague. Para 8 refers to certain allegations made in the complaint when, in fact, it was no where stated in the complaint that no Annual General Meeting was held. Similar ly in para 9, the averment made is with regard to the fact which was brought to the notice of Registrar of Companies. If the applicants wanted to rely upon the fact that no Annual General Meeting was held, the said fact should have been stated in clear terms and should have been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge which was not done.