K S MATHURA DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, K. S. Mathura Dass, along with Hari Singh and his wife, Surjit Kaur, were the directors of Amar Hire Purchase (Private) Limited. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, vide its order dated November 11, 1971, wound up this company and appointed the official liquidator. The official liquidator sent notices to the accused on November 19, 1971, and December 31, 1971, to submit the statement of the affairs of the company as required under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), within 20 days. The appellant, who is the managing director of that company, intimated the official liquidator that he had taken the records of the company to Patiala in connection with the income-tax matter but lost those on his way back to Jullundur. It was further intimated that the company had no property, cash or bank balance.

(2.) AS the appellant in his capacity as a managing director and the other accused (now acquitted), being officers of the company failed to furnish the required information without a reasonable cause, the official liquidator filed a complaint in this court for punishing the accused under Sub-section (3) of Section 454 of the Act. Alter taking cognizance of the offence, the learned single judge of this court held proceedings under Section 454 (5a) of the Act. Hari Singh and Surjit Kaur were acquitted. The appellant was convicted holding that the story of the loss of the records as stated by the appellant was not correct. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. It was further held that the default of information has been caused from December 3, 1971, to January 18, 1973. On this basis, he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 per day for the days, the total of which comes to Rs. 412 In default of payment of this fine the appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This appeal has been directed against this order of conviction.

(3.) SUB -sections (2), (3), (5) and (5a) of Section 454 of the Act, which are relevant for the decision of the point in issue, are as under: