PRAMATHA NATH SANYAL Vs. KALI KUMAR DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Rules relate to convictions under Section 92 (5) of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913).

(2.) In No. 648 the petitioner, as representing the Bengal Miscellany, Limited, a company registered under the Act, and in No. 619, the petitioner, as Secretary thereof, has been so convicted for issuing an advertisement in a daily newspaper named Forward on the 24 June 1924, without filing a copy thereof with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies for registration on or before the date of its publication, as required by the Act.

(3.) The ground upon which the convictions are challenged, put shortly, is that the advertisement in question is not a prospectus within the meaning of the Act, but specifically refers to a prospectus, copy whereof had admittedly been already filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. It is urged that if the prospectus of the Company has already been filed ith the Registrar, as it has been on the 2 September, 1921, and if the advertisement clearly refers to the prospectus and states the fact that it has been so filed, as it does, it is not necessary under the law to file a copy of the advertisement with the Registrar, for there would be no object in doing so; and it is further urged that if a copy of this advertisement had been attempted to be filed it would not have been accepted, as it does not contain the particulars necessary under Section 93 of the Act.