RAVINDRA NARAYAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioners challenge the Criminal Complaint No. 47 of 1991, pending against them, before the Special Court of the Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, for the offence under Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Companies Act'). At the relevant time, all the four petitioners are said to be the directors of Pratap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act. Mr. P.C. Maheshwari was the managing director of the said company.

(2.) THE non -petitioner, i.e., Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed a complaint under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act for committing default in complying with the requirements of Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 220. Sub -sections (1) and (2) require three copies of balance -sheet, etc., to be filed with the Registrar, within the stipulated time mentioned therein. Sub -section (3) provides punishment for the default and it reads as under:

(3.) THE above definition of 'officer in default', makes it clear that a director or directors of the company fall within the said definition if : - -(1) the company does not have any of the officers specified in Clause (a) to Clause (c), i.e., the managing director or the managing directors : the whole -time director or the wholetime directors ; and the manager. Admittedly, in the present case, Mr. P.C. Maheshwari was the managing director of the company, at the relevant time. Therefore, the petitioners, who were directors, at the relevant time, did not fall within the expression 'officer in default' and they could not be held liable criminally, for the default in complying with the requirements of Sub -sections (1) and (2) of Section 220 of the Companies Act.