Presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt supported affirming acquittal for alleged failure to file annual return.

Acquittal for alleged failure to file the annual return under the Companies Act, 1956 was upheld because the prosecution did not prove the ingredients of the default. The sole witness failed to clearly and convincingly support the complaint, and the trial court's assessment of the evidence was found reasonable and plausible. Applying the presumption of innocence, the benefit of doubt, and the rule against interference where two views are possible, the HC declined to disturb the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded for offences relating to failure to file the annual return under the Companies Act, 1956 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence was found insufficient to establish the ingredients of the alleged default. The sole witness did not clearly and convincingly prove the complaint allegations, and the trial court's appreciation of the evidence was held to be reasonable and plausible. In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence, the benefit of doubt, and the rule that interference is unwarranted where two views are possible were applied.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and no interference was made.

---