9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Defects and omissions in the classification of loans and securities and their verification. 2. Non-disclosure of debts as good, bad, or unrealizable. 3. Non-disclosure of amounts borrowed by directors. 4. Non-disclosure of accrued but unrealized interest. Detailed Analysis Issue 1: Defects and Omissions in Classification of Loans and Securities The prosecution alleged that the balance-sheets for the years 1938, 1939, and 1940 did not specifically mention unsecured loans. P.W. 2, the auditor, stated that produce loans were treated as unsecured because there was no evidence of existing security. However, he admitted that he did not verify the existence of produce stocks outside the town. The court found that without verification, it could not be concluded that the loans were unsecured. The auditor's admission that he could not confirm the non-existence of the produce on the balance-sheet dates invalidated the charge. The court held that the charge regarding the unsecured nature of loans was unsustainable due to lack of evidence. Issue 2: Non-Disclosure of Debts as Good, Bad, or Unrealizable The balance-sheets did not demarcate debts as good, bad, or unrealizable. The court noted that the Sankara Ramanuja Siddhantha Paripalana Nidhi was a banking company, and according to the statutory requirements, it was not necessary for banking companies to show such classifications in their balance-sheets. Therefore, there was no wilful omission by the directors or the auditor regarding this item. Issue 3: Non-Disclosure of Amounts Borrowed by Directors The prosecution contended that the balance-sheets did not disclose the amounts borrowed by directors. P.W. 2 admitted that the balance-sheet correctly showed the outstanding loans to directors at the end of each year. He also stated that the non-mention of loans repaid within the year did not falsify the balance-sheet. The court found no legal requirement to show loans repaid within the year in the balance-sheet. Therefore, the court concluded that there was no criminal offence committed by the directors or the auditor in this regard. Issue 4: Non-Disclosure of Accrued but Unrealized Interest The balance-sheets did not show accrued but unrealized interest as an asset. P.W. 2 admitted that the practice of not showing accrued interest was known to shareholders and was a sound policy for profit distribution. The balance-sheets had notes indicating that accrued interest was not considered in determining dividends. The court found that this practice did not constitute wilful concealment of material facts. The court referenced Newton v. Birmingham Small Arms Company Ltd., where it was held that non-disclosure of an asset, if known to shareholders, does not necessarily violate statutory requirements. Conclusion The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the auditor or the directors wilfully made false statements in the balance-sheets. The evidence did not support the charges under section 282 of the Indian Companies Act. The court emphasized that the duties of an auditor and directors involve reasonable care and skill, not suspicion or detective work. The charges were quashed, and the accused were discharged.
|
