9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 337 AND 689 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2008 - MAHESH C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccused company failed to submit the annual return. Although default notices were issued and served upon the accused persons but still they failed to submit the return and thus, committed default in terms of the provisions of section 159, read with section 162 of the Act and thus, made themselves liable for prosecution and punishment under the provisions of section 159, read with section 162 of the Act. It was also averred that pending decision upon the complaint, the accused persons be directed to submit annual return in accordance with the provisions of sections 614A and 611(2) of the Act. Cost of the proceedings were also demanded along with the request that the offence made out against the accused persons be treated as an offence continu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Thus, interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14-8-2002 passed by learned trial Court. 10. Per contra Mr. O.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused respondents submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the statement of PW1 Ajay Kumar Meena. The statement of this witness does not clarify/confirm the contents of the complaint filed by the Union of India and the aforesaid statement is only in four lines. This witness has failed to prove ingredients. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 14-8-2002 passed by learned trial Court. 11. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court : U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
