9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company, Messrs. Shivaji Films (P.) Ltd. (the first accused in the case), the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 6 and 7 along with the other directors of the first accused company in the complaint filed by the respondent herein. During the trial, PWs-1 and 2 had been examined and the case was posted for questioning the accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. At that stage, the petitioners have come to this court to quash the proceedings on the ground that the petitioners are not the directors of the company and that, therefore, requiring them to answer questions under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Thiru G. John Arthur, learned counsel for the petitioners, puts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly served on November 27, 1979. Returns were not filed. Hence, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued and the same was served on the first accused company and repeated reminders were sent on October 13, 1981, November 7, 1981, December 17, 1981, January 11, 1982 and January 22, 1982. Despite these notices, there was no response. Hence, an ex parte assessment was made on February 27, 1982, under section 144 of the Act. A show-cause notice dated August 26, 1983, was also issued to the first accused and served on August 27, 1983. Still, there was no reply. Hence, the prosecution in C. C. No. 130 of 1984 and C. C. Nos. 131, 132 and 133 of 1984 for the subsequent years. After the Department had repeatedly issued notices and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced before this court and learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance upon the above document to show that the petitioners are not directors. Learned counsel also contends that none of them can be treated as principal officers. When learned counsel was asked as to who the directors were during the relevant period and who the principal officer was, he said that it is for the Department to find out and it was not for him to supply the information to the Department. Whatever that be, now there is the evidence of PW-1 that the petitioners were also directors at the relevant time. The question as to whether they are directors or not and as to whether they are principal officers or not are questions of fact, which the trial cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
