REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Vs. BIPINI BEHARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registrar of Companies, Orissa, Cuttack (complainant-appellant), assails the judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, whereby he has set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Court, Cuttack, by acquitting the accused-respondent.

(2.) The appellant-complainant filed a complaint petition in 2(C) C. C. Case No. 233 of 1977 against Kalinga Advertising and Marketing Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"), and its directors including the respondent alleging that they were under statutory obligation to file with the Registrar of Companies an annual report in the prescribed form made up to the date of the annual general meeting. The said meeting of the company should have been held latest by March 11, 1976, and the annual return made up to that date should have been filed with the Registrar of Companies on or before May 11, 1976. The company and its directors including the respondent having not filed the return made up to March 11, 1976, before the complainant in spite of service of notice, the complaint petition was filed against them under Section 162 of the Act for contravention of Section 159 of the Act. Since the attendance of the accused-respondent could not be secured for a very long time, the case against him was split up and after his attendance in court the trial against him took place and, by judgment dated March 10, 1983, the trial court convicted him under Section 162 of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of 25 paise per day, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. On appeal being preferred, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, having acquitted him of the charge by judgment dated May 10, 1984, the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing on June 18, 1993, there was no appearance from the side of the appellant and the hearing was concluded after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent. The only point for consideration is whether the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be interfered with. As already indicated above, the respondent-accused faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 162 of the Act which, so far as material, is extracted below :