9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Accused charged under section 162 of the Companies Act for non-filing of returns, Allegation against accused directors/officers for failure to hold annual general meeting and file annual returns, Interpretation of "officer who is in default" under section 5 of the Act, Defense based on resignation as director, Application of precedent regarding liability of directors/officers in default. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the petitioner, accused No. 4, was charged under section 162 of the Companies Act for non-filing of returns as required under sections 159 and 161 of the Act. The complaint alleged that accused No. 1, a public limited company, and accused Nos. 2 to 11, as directors/officers in charge, failed to hold the first annual general meeting and file annual returns within the stipulated timeline. The complainant contended that the accused directors/officers were liable under the relevant provisions of the Act for the said non-compliance. The petitioner argued that without specific averments that he was a whole-time director or managing director, he could not be considered an "officer in default" under section 5 of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner claimed to have resigned from the directorial position before the alleged offense, thus asserting immunity from prosecution. However, the court noted that the offense predated the purported resignation, rendering the defense invalid. Citing a precedent, the court emphasized that liability against directors/officers could be established if they were in charge and responsible for the company's actions, as explicitly alleged in the complaint in this instance. Ultimately, the court dismissed the criminal petition, affirming that the prosecution against the petitioner, who was both accused No. 4 and an officer in charge of the company, was justified. The judgment underscored the importance of accountability and adherence to statutory obligations by company officials, emphasizing that resignation after the commission of an offense does not absolve one from liability.
|
