BANKAT LAL BADRUKA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are six appeals Nos. 433 to 438, Register No. 6 of 1950. The second Magistrate (City Criminal Court), by judgment dated 22nd Bahman 1359 P. convicted the appellants under Sections 48 and 74 of the Hyderabad Companies Act. An appeal was lodged before a single Bench of this Court and it has by judgment dated 5-4-1950, referred the case to this Bench. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates of the parties and we record with pleasure that Shri Hari Pershad of the Department also assisted us with remarkably clear statements and adduction of relevant papers.

(2.) THE complaint was filed on 16th Dai, 1358 F. against the Deccan Porcelain and Enamel Works Ltd. , and its four Directors who are the appellants here by the Deputy Registrar of the Hyderabad joint stock Companies. The evidence also consists largely of the deposition of the Deputy Registrar and a few letters. The gist of the complaint as evidenced by the deposition and the letters is that the offending company and its directors did not send the balance sheet of 1945 A, D. and sent the balance sheets of 1946 and 1947 A. D. late; that similarly they did not send in time the list of the shareholders and, therefore, they offended against the provisions of Sections 74 and 48, respectively, of the Hyderabad Companies Act corresponding respectively to Sections 76, 131, 134 and 32, Indian Companies Act. We will take both these complaints seriatim.

(3.) AS already stated, the first complaint is that the balance-sheet for 1945 A. D. was not prepared and was not sent to the Registrar of the joint Stock Companies. The Magistrate did not give any finding on this count but held generally the complaint is proved. We probed into the matter and as the learned Advocate for the complainant laid stress on the balance-sheet of 1945 only, we examined the papers. It appeared that the Managing Agents in their letter No. 3677/48 dated 14-12-1948, had replied to the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies that the balance-sheets of 1945 (as also of 1946 and 1947) were sent in time, but that as it appears that he had not received them, copies were being enclosed with the reply. The papers and the file of the complainant's office show that the balance sheet of 1945 was prepared in time and the Directors sent it in July, 1946. The auditor's signatures followed on 30th July, 1946. It was admitted that the Directors also held the annual meeting for the year 1945, in good time as provided in the Companies Act, and that the General Body passed the same. It is, therefore, evident, that the Annual General Meeting for 1945 was held in consonance with the provisions of the Companies Act alter the preparation of the balance-sheet and that the Directors had complied with all the requirements in this regard, i. e. , they prepared balance-sheet, got it audited, and called a general meeting which passed it. We are, therefore, not inclined to hold the appellants liable. Their conviction and fine, in this respect, is, therefore, set aside.