REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ORISSA Vs. BIPIN BEHARI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The registrar of Compa nies, Orissa, being felt aggrieved by the order passed by the Second Additional Sessions, Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1983 acquitting the respondent of the offence of default in filling the balance-sheet of the Company in time punishable under Section 220(3) of the Com panies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has filed this appeal.

(2.) The appellant filed complaint against Messers Kalinga Advertising and Marketing Pri vate Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Com pany') and five different individuals including the respondent (each of then being described as Director except one P. K. Das who was described as Managing Director) on the allegation that the balance-sheet of the company was not filed in time as required by Sub-Section (1) of Section 220 of the Act for which each of them committed an offence punishable under Sub-Section (3) of Section 220 of the Act. The said complaint was registered as 2(c) CC No. 48 of 1980 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum -Special Court, Cuttack. After taking coginsance under Sub-Section (3) of Section 220 of the Act, the learned Magistrate issued summons. As presence of other accused persons except the respon dent could not be secured, the learned Magistrate passed order on 4-1-1983 spliting up the case and the trial proceeded against the respondent alone. In the trial the prosecution examined lone witness as PW. 1 who was the clerk working in the office of the appellant.

(3.) The plea of the respondent was one of denial. His defence was that he was not a Director of the Company and he did not even know about the existence of any such company. On the basis of the evidence of PW. 1, the learned Magistrate held the respondent to be a Director of the Com pany and lie knowingly and willfully permitted the default in complying with the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 220 of the Act. Accordingly, he convicted the respondent under Sub-Section (3) of Section 220 of the Act and sen tenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 0.26 per day. Against the said conviction and sentence appeal was filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was no specific mention in the complaint that he as Director was responsible for non-filing of the balance-sheet within the time. This order of acquittal as already noted is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.