9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said company at the time of filing of complaint. Under section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956 ( the Act ) as amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1977 there is a statutory obligation on the part of the company and its directors to file the approved balance sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days before the Registrar of Companies after laying them before the annual general meeting. The audited balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company as on 30-6-1989 have to be laid before the annual general meeting to be held on 31-12-1989 as required under section 210 of the Act. It is also mentioned that three copies of the balance sheet, etc., so laid shall be filed with the Registrar of Companies on or before 30-1-1990. If i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent contends that there was no complaint made to the Central Government about the auditors appointed. The Managing Director and Secretary are responsible since they have not complied with the provisions of section 220. She also further contends that sanction is not required for prosecuting the Managing Director and Secretary of 1st petitioner-company. 6. Adverting to the said contentions, it is clear that petitioners 2 and 3 are not working at the time of alleged default. It is also clear that soon after taking charge as Vice-Chairman, 2nd petitioner got the accounts audited and the balance sheet also got prepared. Therefore, negligence cannot be attributed to petitioners 2 and 3. It is a case of n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence, the only point for determination is whether it was committed in the discharge of official duty. There must be a reasonable connection between the act and the official duty. It does not matter even if the act exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of the duty, as this question will arise only at a later stage when the trial proceeds on the merits. What a Court has to find out is whether the act and the official duty are so inter-related that one can postulate reasonably that it was done by the accused in the performance of official duty, though, possibly in excess of the needs and requirements of situation. ****** 15. Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions, it will be clear that for claiming protect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of trial by giving opportunity to the defence to establish it. In such an eventuality, the question of sanction should be left open to be decided in the main judgment which may be delivered upon conclusion of trial." It is clear from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, if an act committed has something to do or is related in some manner with the discharge of official duty, sanction is required. Even otherwise, they are not functioning as officials at the relevant time. They cannot be held responsible by showing them as accused for latches of their predecessors in discharge of official duty. The complaint has been filed without obtaining the sanction. Therefore, it is not maintainable against public servants. Insofar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
