EMPEROR Vs. PIONEER CLAY AND INDUSTRIAL WORKS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED No.1, which is a limited company, and accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who are the directors of that company, were charged under Section 134 (4) of the Indian Companies Act, and the learned Additional Stipendiary. Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, acquitted them, and from that order of acquittal Government have come in appeal.

(2.) THE facts on which the prosecution was founded are not in dispute. THE prosecution alleged that accused Nos, 2, 3, 4 and 5 had failed, as required by Section 134 (4) of the Indian Companies Act, to file with the Registrar of Companies three copies of the balance-sheet and accounts of the company for the year 1944. It is common ground that no general meeting of the company has been called at which the balances-sheet and the profit and loss account for the year 1944 have been laid. Turning to Section 134 (1) it provides that after the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account have been laid before the company at a general meeting three copies thereof signed by the manager or secretary of the company shall be filed with the Registrar at the same time as the copy of the annual list of members and summary prepared in acccordance with the requirements of Section 32, and the penal Sub-section (4) provides that if a company makes default in complying with the requirements of this section, it shall be liable to certain penalty. It is to be noted that what is made penal is default in complying with the requirements of the section and the requirements of Section 134 (1) are that there is an obligation cast upon the company to file three copies of the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account after they have been laid before the company at the general meeting. THEre is no obligation cast upon the company to file any such copies if no general meeting has been called. As I started by saying, it is common ground that no general meeting of the company has been convened at which the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for 1944 has been laid. Apart from authority it would seem clear on the terms of this section that the company and its four directors have not made any default in complying with the requirements of this sub-section of Section 134.