1984 (3) TMI 266 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of section 633(1) of the Companies Act, 1956
- Legality of the procedure followed by the Magistrate in disposing of the application under section 633(1)
- Requirement of evidence in deciding on relief under section 633(1)

Interpretation of section 633(1) of the Companies Act, 1956:
The judgment involves a complaint against four directors of a company for an offence under section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. The accused director filed an application under section 633(1) of the Act seeking relief from liability, alleging the other directors' non-compliance with statutory requirements. Section 633(1) provides a special remedy for accused persons in criminal proceedings under the Act, allowing relief if the accused acted honestly and reasonably. The court must ascertain the accused's liability and excuse him fairly before granting relief. The judgment emphasizes the need for an inquiry to determine the accused's guilt or potential guilt before invoking section 633(1).

Legality of the procedure followed by the Magistrate:
The judgment addresses the legality of the procedure followed by the Magistrate in disposing of the application under section 633(1). It notes that the Act and its rules do not specify the procedure for such an inquiry. Referring to the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court determines that the inquiry under section 633(1) must follow the provisions of the Code. The court rejects the argument that the inquiry under section 633(1) is not related to an offence and asserts that the court must establish the accused's guilt or potential guilt before granting relief, requiring adherence to the Code's procedures.

Requirement of evidence in deciding on relief under section 633(1):
The judgment emphasizes the discretionary nature of the court's power under section 633(1) and the importance of exercising it judiciously. It suggests that relief under this section should not be granted based solely on application contents and objections but should consider evidence presented during the trial. The court highlights the necessity of basing decisions on evidence adduced through witness examination, except where the Code allows evidence through affidavits. As the application in this case was decided without proper evidence, the court sets aside the order and instructs the Magistrate to dispose of the application in accordance with the law and based on evidence presented during the trial.