Companies Act prosecution for default in statutory filings survives where complaint specifically alleges directors were in default despite later resignation.

A criminal complaint for non-filing of annual returns under the Companies Act, 1956 was sustained where it specifically alleged that the company's directors and officers in charge were in default. The High Court rejected quashing on the ground that no separate detailed averment described the petitioner as an officer in default, because the complaint already contained a direct allegation of default in relation to the statutory filings. The petitioner's reliance on resignation from directorship also failed, as the alleged offence had occurred before the resignation. Prosecution was therefore not treated as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint for non-filing of annual returns was liable to be quashed for want of a specific averment that the petitioner was an officer in default, and whether the petitioner's alleged resignation from directorship could defeat the prosecution.

Analysis: The complaint alleged contravention of sections 159 and 161 of the Companies Act, 1956, attracting punishment under section 162, and specifically stated that the directors and officers in charge of the company were in default. The plea based on resignation was not available because the alleged offence had occurred prior to the resignation. The court distinguished the reliance placed on cases dealing with liability under section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the complaint here contained a direct allegation that the accused directors and officers were in default in relation to the relevant records and returns. On that basis, the prosecution could not be treated as an abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the petitioner was not entitled to quashing of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the complaint specifically alleges that the accused directors or officers were in default in relation to the company's statutory filings, and the alleged offence predates resignation, prosecution under the Companies Act cannot be quashed merely for want of a separate detailed recital of the director's role.

---