Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the accused's failure to file the statement of affairs under section 454 was without reasonable excuse and whether they were entitled to relief under section 633(1).
Analysis: Under section 454(5), mere default is not enough; the prosecution must prove that the default was without reasonable excuse. The evidence showed that the company's records were not available to the accused when the statement was required, that the books had been in the custody of the Revenue authorities and were later recovered by the official liquidator without notice to the accused, and that there was no reliable proof that the records had been made available for inspection and preparation of the statement. The circumstances supported the accused's inability to prepare a true statement of affairs and constituted a reasonable excuse.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove that the default was without reasonable excuse, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for default under section 454(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, absence of reasonable excuse is an essential ingredient of the offence and must be established by the prosecution; where company records are unavailable to the accused so as to prevent preparation of the statement of affairs, the default is not punishable.