Proof of directorship and officer-in-default liability required before sustaining conviction for annual return non-compliance.

Conviction for non-compliance with the annual return requirement was unsustainable because the prosecution did not prove that the petitioner was a director or an officer in default. The only material relied on to show directorship was a Form No. 32 return filed by the managing director, but it was not treated as an admission by the petitioner and was not supported by verification from company records. The complaint also lacked a specific averment that he was the officer in default, and no evidence established such liability. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for non-compliance with the annual return requirement could be sustained in the absence of proof that the petitioner was a director or an officer in default.

Analysis: The only material relied upon to show that the petitioner was a director was a return in Form No. 32 submitted by the managing director. That document was not treated as an admission by the petitioner. There was no further verification from the company records and no evidence establishing that the petitioner was a director. The complaint also contained no specific averment that he was the officer in default, and there was no evidence to support such liability.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside.

---