STATE Vs. MEWAR MINERALS COMPANY PRIVATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals against three judgments of acquittal passed by City Magistrate, Jaipur, raise some common questions and can conveniently be disposed of by this judgment. The Mewar Mineral Company Private Limited, Udaipur, is admittedly a company of which the other three accused P. V. Chandra, K. L. Mehta and C. B. Damani were the directors while accused M. L. Mehta was the Managing Director. The last annual general meeting of the company was held on December 9, 1958, but no meeting was held thereafter during the years 1957 and 1958. Criminal appeal No. 296 of 1960 relates to the allegation that the accused did not lay, at the annual general meeting of the company in 1937, the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account for the period specified in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 210 of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter in this judgment referred to as the Act, and that they failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with that requirement of sec. 210 of the Act inspite of the issue of notices by the State Registrar of Companies. The two other appeals arise out of the allegation that the accused did not prepare and file with the Registrar the returns containing the particulars specified in Part I of Schedule V in accordance with the provisions of sec. 159 of the Act. Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 1960 relates to the default in that respect for the year 1957, while Criminal Appeal No. 190 relates to the default for 1958.

(2.) THE accused took almost similar pleas in the three cases. In Criminal Appeal No. 296, accused M. L. Mehta took the plea that the financial condition of the company deteriorated considerably so that all its work was stopped in 1953 and there was no staff to prepare the accounts. This was also given as the reason for not holding general meeting of the company. Accused K. L. Mehta pleaded that he had left the company in 1952 and that he could not compel the Managing Director to file the necessary returns and call a meeting of the company. He also pleaded that it was the duty of the Managing Director to take the necessary action in the matter. An almost similar plea was taken by P. V. Chandra except that he further pleaded that he did not know Hindi. In the other two appeals, written statements were filed by P. V. Chandra, K. L. Mehta and G. B. Damani stating that they had ceased to be directors of the company and that they could not possibly be convicted of offences under sec. 159 read with sec. 162 of the Act because no general meeting of the company was at all held, and also because they had already been prosecuted for their failure to hold the meetings.

(3.) IN the result, we dismiss appeals Nos. 190 and 191. We have already made the order partially allowing appeal No. 296 of 1960 and direct the District Magistrate, Udaipur to carry out the sentence awarded by us. .