(1.) THIS case was referred to a Division Bench and so it has come before us.
(2.) THIS reference was necessitated on account of different prevailing views on the question involved, one represented by Registrar of Companies v. Haribansha Misra, [1969] 39 Comp. Cas. 990, A.I.R. 1969 Orissa 234 which is based on the analogy of the decision in State of Bombay v. Bandhan Ram Bhandani, [1961] 31 Comp. Cas. 1 ; [1961] 1 S.C.R. 801 ; A.I.R, 1961 S.C. 186 and the other by the decision in Andhra Provincial Potteries Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies, [1969] 39 Comp. Cas. 1000 ; A.I.R. 1970 A.P. 70 following Emperor v. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd., A.I.R. 1948 Bom. 357 which, according to the learned referring judge, is in conformity with the language of the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). The Orissa case as well as the Andhra Pradesh case turned on the interpretation of Section 220(1) of the Act and while the former relied on State of Bombay v. Bandhan Ram Bhandani the latter distinguished it on the basis of the difference in language between Sections 32, 76, 131 and 133 of the Companies Act, 1913, as amended by Act 22 of 1936, with the interpretation of which the Supreme Court was dealing and Section 220 of the Act with which it was concerned and held that the decision in Emperor v. Pioneer Clay and Industrial Works Ltd. was not overruled by the Supreme Court, and followed the principle enunciated therein.
(3.) THE petitioners are a private limited company and three of its directors. This company was incorporated on December 6, 1960, and has its registered office at Sambalpur. They were prosecuted under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act on the allegation that the balance -sheet for the financial year ending on March 31, 1968, which should have been placed before the annual general meeting by September 30, 1968, and then within 30 days thereof should have been filed before the Registrar has not been so filed and his default in filing the same before the Registrar continued for 114 days. They have thus been convicted under Section 220(3) of the Act, and the petitioner No. 1 has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.