LAWS(CAL)-1966-7-22

MADAN GOPAL DEY Vs. STATE

Decided On July 14, 1966
MADAN GOPAL DEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seven complaints out of which these seven Revision Cases arise were registered as seven cases in the court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta, but were tried together and were governed by the same judgment. Here in this court also the seven cases were heard together as the same questions of law are involved in all of them. Madan Gopal Dey and his wife Sm. Anjali Dey are the two petitioners in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 637 to 640 while T. Dey and Co. (P) Ltd. is the petitioner in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 641, 642 and 643 of 1964.

(2.) The petitioners in both sets of cases obtained the present Rules against their conviction under Sections 162 (1), 168, 220 (3) and 210 (5) of the Indian Companies Act 1956 and the sentence of a fine of Rs. 50 on each count passed on each of them thereunder, Madan Gopal Dey and Sm. Anjali Dey were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 14 days each in default of payment of fine and half of the fine imposed in all these cases was directed to be paid to the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, if realised, as cost.

(3.) T. Dey and Co. (Private) Limited was incorporated on December 12, 1960 and Madan Gopal Dey and Sm. Anjali Dey were declared to be its first Directors. The charge under Section 162 (1) of the Companies Act relates to the failure of the company as well as of its Directors to prepare and file with the Registrar under Section 159 of the Act the annual return within 42 days of the annual general meeting. The charge under Section 168 of the Act arises out of the failure of the company as well as of its two Directors to hold the first annual general meeting as required by Section 166 of the Act. The charge under Section 220 (3) of the Act relates to the violation of the requirement of Section 220 (1) thereof which requires the company and every officer of the company in default to file the balance sheet and the profit and loss account of the company with the Registrar, while the charge under Section 210 (5) relates to the failure of the Directors to place before the annual general meeting of the company the balance sheet and the profit and loss account for the specified period as required in Section 210 (1) of the Act.