Court upholds conviction under Companies Act, sets aside for lack of evidence. Registrar competent to file complaint.

The court upheld the conviction and sentence against petitioner No. 1 under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. However, it set aside the conviction against petitioners 2 to 4 due to insufficient evidence of their knowing default as directors. The Assistant Registrar of Companies was deemed competent to file the complaint, relying on precedent. The admissibility of documentary evidence was questioned, with the court highlighting the lack of personal knowledge in the evidence provided. The revision petition was partially allowed, with fines realized from petitioners 2 to 4 to be refunded.

---

---

Issues:
Conviction and sentence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956; Competence of Assistant Registrar of Companies to file a petition of complaint; Admissibility of documentary evidence; Evidence of default by directors under section 5 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a revision petition against the conviction and sentence under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Assistant Registrar of Companies filed a complaint alleging non-submission of balance-sheet and profit and loss account by the company and its directors within the specified period. The Magistrate found the accused guilty and imposed fines. The petitioners challenged the legality of the complaint, admissibility of evidence, and the evidence of default by the directors.

Regarding the competence of the Assistant Registrar to file a complaint, the court relied on precedent and held that the Assistant Registrar has the authority to file a complaint under the Companies Act. The judgment in Ajit Kumar Sarkar v. Assistant Registrar of Companies was cited to support this conclusion, dismissing the petitioners' contention on this issue.

On the admissibility of documentary evidence, the court noted that the evidence provided by P.W. 1, an assistant in the Registrar of Companies office, lacked personal knowledge. The court emphasized that the documentary evidence was formal in nature, and the prosecution's case needed to be proven by other evidence. The court decided not to consider the evidence regarding the service of notices due to the lack of personal knowledge by P.W. 1.

Regarding the evidence of default by the directors under section 5 of the Companies Act, the court analyzed the requirement for clear evidence of knowing default by the directors. The court highlighted the need for evidence that the directors knowingly permitted or authorized the default. While the petition of complaint made necessary averments, it was not considered substantive evidence. The court concluded that petitioners 2 to 4 could not be held guilty of default without clear evidence and set aside the conviction against them.

In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction and sentence against petitioner No. 1 but set aside the conviction against petitioners 2 to 4. The revision petition was allowed in part, and any fines realized from petitioners 2 to 4 were to be refunded.

---