9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition to quash criminal complaints under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. 2. Allegations under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 for non-filing of balance-sheet and profit and loss account. 3. Contention of petitioner regarding retirement from directorship and liability. Analysis: The judgment involves two petitions seeking to quash criminal complaints under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaints were filed against the accused company and its directors for non-filing of balance-sheet and profit and loss account as required under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaints alleged that the accused willfully allowed these defaults to continue, making them liable for prosecution. The petitioner, one of the directors, contended that he had retired from directorship during the relevant period, and hence should not be held liable. The petitioner relied on a company petition filed later, which claimed that no annual general meetings were held during the relevant years, leading to the retirement of directors. However, the court held that the mere allegation in the company petition was not sufficient evidence to prove retirement. The complaints positively alleged that the petitioner was a director during the period in question, based on records filed with the authorities. The court emphasized that the petitioner could prove his retirement during the trial but could not presume it at this stage. The court referred to legal precedent stating that directors due to retire at the next annual general meeting ceased to be directors only after the meeting. Therefore, the court dismissed both petitions, stating that the petitioner needed to establish his retirement during the trial, as the complaints could not be quashed solely based on the claim of retirement without concrete evidence. In conclusion, the court rejected the petitions to quash the complaints under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, as the allegations of non-filing of required documents were based on positive assertions of the petitioner's directorship during the relevant period. The court highlighted that the petitioner's claim of retirement needed to be substantiated with evidence during the trial and could not be presumed at this initial stage. The judgment underscored the importance of proving facts during trial proceedings and upheld the legal principle that retirement from directorship does not automatically absolve one from liabilities without concrete evidence of the same.
|
