BIMAL KUMAR NOPANY Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 2 to 5 in S.T.C. No. 3/1989 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offiences, Hyderabad. The case was filed by the Registrar of Companies against five accused under sub-section 11 of Sec. 233-B of the Companies Act. The first accused is the Company. Accused 2 to 5 who are the petitioners herein, are the directors of the Company. The petitioners have filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them on the ground that the allegations in the complaint did not make out any offence against them.

(2.) Sec. 233-B (11) of the Companies Act provides that if default is made in complying with the provisions of this section, the company shall be liable to be punished and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be liable to be punished. Sec. 2 Cl. 30 of the Companies Act defines "officer" which includes any director etc., Sec. 2 Cl-31 says that the officer who is in default in relation to any provision referred to in Sec. 5 has the meaning specified in that section. Sec. 5 defines "officer who is in default". It says, for the purpose of any provision in this Act, which enacts that an officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to any punishment or penalty, whether by way of imprisonment, fine or otherwise, the expression "officer who is in default" means any officer of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default, non-compliance, failure, refusal or contravention mentioned in that provision, or who knowingly and wilfully authorises or permits such default, non-compliance, failure, refusal or contravention.

(3.) The question to be considered in this petition is whether the petitioners come under the definition of "officer who is in default" and are they liable for punishment.