TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (2) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an appeal by the complainant against the appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents, who were sentenced by the Magistrate to pay a fine of Rs. 250 each under section 629A of the Companies Act, hereinafter called the Act. For a proper appreciation of the points involved in the case, it would be necessary to consider certain provisions of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l words of this section are : "If a company or any other person contravenes any provision of this Act for which no punishment is provided elsewhere in this Act................the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter, he filed a complaint dated 23rd June, 1962, against all the respondents on the allegations that, inasmuch as four names were proposed under a single resolution for election of directors, without a prior unanimous resolution to that effect (as required by the last clause of section 263(1) of the Act), they should all be punished under section 629A of the Act. The City Magistrate accepted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section (1) of section 263 of the Act. So they, along with the other accused, were punishable under section 629A of the Act. The argument is certainly plausible. However, it has to be remembered that section 263 has to be read as a whole and that section 629A is a penal provision and, if two interpretations are possible in the case, the one which favours the accused has to be accepted. It is true....