2008 (8) TMI 567 - HC - Companies Law

Cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Held that - Looking to the evidence presented, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. Thus no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate (sic) Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate (sic) Court and thus appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The case involved two criminal appeals filed by the Union of India against the judgment of acquittal dated 14-8-2002 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City, in a matter related to the offence under section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956. The complaint alleged that the accused company failed to submit its annual return within the specified time, despite receiving default notices. The trial court took cognizance of the offence, recorded statements of witnesses and accused, and ultimately acquitted the accused respondents.

The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges, emphasizing the statement of the prosecution witness, which indicated the accused directors' failure to submit the annual return. The defense contended that the witness's statement was insufficient to prove the allegations, highlighting the lack of clarity and confirmation regarding the complaint's contents. The defense also cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing non-interference in judgments of acquittal when two views are possible.

The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, concluded that the prosecution did not establish its case against the accused respondents. The court highlighted the principle of not disturbing orders of acquittal unless necessary, considering factors such as witness credibility, presumption of innocence, and benefit of doubt to the accused. Consequently, the High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the judgment of acquittal by the trial court in case Nos. 549/2000 and 551/2000 related to the Companies Act, 1956.