1978 (3) TMI 170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... earned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, for an, offence punishable Under section 210(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". In the complaint it has been alleged that the two accused-respondents, who are the directors of a private company named and styled as Rahimpur Tea Company Private Ltd, having its registered, office at Rahaman House, Jalpaiguri, were under a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s order dated July 28, 1976, discharged the two accused-respondents on the, finding that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute an offence under section 210(5) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the complainant filed the present appeal with special leave of this court. Though the order of the learned Magistrate is one of discharge, the same must be treated as one of acquittal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct, 1913, in that case and the Supreme Court held that if the person charged with the failure to carry out the requirements of the section could have called the meeting, he cannot defeat the provisions of the section simply by not calling the meeting wilfully. In the said decision while considering the provisions of sections 131 and 133(3) of the Companies Act, 191.3, the language of which is almo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X