9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the revision petitioners calls for no interference and accordingly it was confirmed. Sentence Imposed u/s 97(3) - Whether the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners for the conviction under Section 97 (3) of the Act calls for interference – Held that:- On considering the circumstances and the failure of the revision petitioners to file Form No.5 for the increased share capital and also the failure to pay the fee and the additional fee, the appellate court while reducing the fine and directed the revision petitioners to pay a fine – The conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 97 (3) of the Companies Act was confirmed and the sentence imposed on the petitioner to pay fine was reduced and modified - the revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fine amount of Rs. 3,32,500/-, an amount of Rs. 65,000/- was directed to be paid as cost to the complainant as per Annexure-A judgment passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the Annexure-A judgment the matter was taken up in Appeal as Criminal appeal No. 734 of 2010 by the revision petitioners herein. After a careful evaluation of evidence and the rival contentions, the appellate court confirmed the conviction, but interfered with the sentence imposed against the revision petitioners. The sentence was modified by reducing the fine from Rs. 3,32,500/- to Rs. 1,66,250/- each by calculating a sum of Rs. 50/- per day of default. However, the appellate court did not interfere the direction to pay Rs. 32,500/- each by the revision petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adduced by the prosecution as also the defence that the trial court entered the finding of guilty against the revision petitioners and convicted them for the offence under Section 97 (3) of the Companies Act. The appellate court had, obviously evaluated the evidence on record as also the rival contentions, but did not find any illegality or impropriety in the conviction of the revision petitioners. The very fact that the petitioners have filed Form No.5 and remitted an amount of Rs. 4,16,517/- towards fee and additional fee subsequent to Annexure-B judgment of the appellate court would conclusively reveal the factum of violation of statutory mandate, as held by the courts below. No case was brought out by the revision petitioners to find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners to file Form No.5 for the increased share capital and also the failure to pay the fee and the additional fee therefor, the appellate court while reducing the fine limited it only to sum of Rs. 50/- per day of default in place of Rs. 100/- fixed by the trial court and as such, directed the revision petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 1,66,250/- each. However, in view of the factual position, now obtained in this case I am of the considered view that to meet the ends of justice it will be suffice to direct the revision petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- per day of default. 8. In the result, this revision petition is allowed in part. The conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 97 (3) of the Companies Act is confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
