9911796707
TMI Blog1932 (3) TMI 15X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the accused were found guilty of the first two offences. The 3rd accused was acquitted of the third offence. Accused 1, 2, 4 and 5 were convicted and various fines imposed, 3rd accused is since dead. Cr. Revision Case No. 641 of 1931 has been put in by accused 1 and 2 and Cr. Revision Case No. 648 by accused 4 and 5. Taking the first charge under Sec. 134(4), Sec. 134(1) says: "After the balance sheet has been laid before the company at the general meeting a copy thereof signed by the manager or secretary of the company shall be filed with the registrar at the same time as the copy of the annual list of members and summary prepared in accordance with the requirements of Sec. 32." The first balance sheet Ex. Y prepared for the year ending ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... test date up to which the balance sheet should have been prepared is therefore up to the period ending 31st October, 1929, and that under Article 151 of the articles of association such a balance sheet should have been put before the general meeting within not more than four months, and hence there should have been a general meeting not later than 28th February 1930. Apart from the fact that the articles of association have no statutory force, this is not what Article 151 says. It runs:- "At every ordinary general meeting the Directors shall lay before the Company a profit and loss account, and a balance sheet, containing a summary of the property and assets and liability of the company made up to a date not more than four months before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fence under Sec. 131(4) and that that section must be read along with Sec. 134. That is to my mind a quite untenable argument. The accused might have had quite a good defence against a charge under this head, and in fact, it is suggested that the books had all been taken away, and therefore they could not make up the accounts. However that may be, the charge is not under Sec. 131(4) but under Sec. 134(4); and to my mind it is clear that they have met this charge effectually and there can be no conviction for this offence. The second offence was one under Sec. 32(4). That section requires a company to make every year a list of all persons who on the day of the first or only ordinary general meeting in the year are members of the company, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en marked as an exhibit and there is no proof that it is correct. The case quoted by the lower Court, In re Briton Medical and General Life Association [1888] 39 Ch. D. 61; 57 L.J. Ch. 874; 59 L.T. 134; 37 W.R, 52, has no application. What was held in that case was that the forwarding to the Registrar of a list of members and summary which upon the face of them purport to satisfy the requirements of the Act is not a sufficient compliance with that section unless such list and summary are in accordance with the facts and the Court can go into this. Finally, it is clear that an officer of a company cannot be convicted under this section unless it is found that he knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the default, Vide: Sundar Das v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Registrar notice of any change among its directors or managers. On 29th May, 1930, the 3rd accused sent in his resignation of his directorship of the Bank. But at a meeting of the directors held on 29th October, 1930, that resignation was withdrawn and the resignation of the 4th accused was accepted. The lower Court has dropped the resignation of the 4th accused and only deals with the resignation of the 3rd accused. In Form 26 it is stated that the notice of change should be given within 30 days from the date of occurrence. The resignation of the 3rd accused no doubt took effect from the date of the resignation letter. Vide: Glossop v. Glossop [1907] 2 Ch. D. 374 quoted by the lower Court. But it has been held in Kumud Chandra Nandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk it is necessary to express an opinion on this point. The other point is that there has been misjoinder of parties. That I think is clear. The 3rd accused was obviously not chargeable under the third charge, but he was tried jointly with the other accused on all the charges. It has been held in Upendranath Bishwas v. Emperor 41 Cal. 694; 18 C.W.N. 486 that Sec. 233, Criminal Procedure Code, applies to summons cases, and as regards misjoinder of charges vitiating trial, may be mentioned the well known Privy Council case in Subrahmania Ayyar v. King Emperor 25 Mad. 61. I would therefore hold that in any case the misjoinder of parties had vitiated the trial. In the light of the above it is hardly necessary to deal with Cr. R.C. No. 648 put ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
