Clerical error in Form 23AC cannot sustain prosecution without a knowingly false company statement.

A prosecution for false corporate disclosure could not be sustained where the balance-sheet was duly filed and signed as required, and the only defect was an erroneous entry in the accompanying Form 23AC. In the absence of any allegation that the balance-sheet itself contained a false, misleading, or concealed material statement, a mere clerical or typographical mistake in the forwarding form did not satisfy the ingredients of section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court stated that the proper course was correction of the form, not prosecution, and the proceedings were therefore liable to be quashed under section 633(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether prosecution or show-cause proceedings under section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be sustained on the basis of an entry in Form 23AC showing four directors as signatories when the balance-sheet itself was signed only by two directors, and whether such proceedings were liable to be quashed under section 633(2) of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: The balance-sheet had been duly filed and signed in the manner required by section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956. The alleged defect related only to Form 23AC, which accompanied the balance-sheet, and there was no allegation of any false or misleading statement in the balance-sheet itself or of concealment of material facts. The Court held that a mere clerical or typographical mistake in the forwarding form, without any specific allegation of falsehood made knowingly, would not attract section 628. In the absence of the essential ingredients of the offence, the initiation of prosecution was unwarranted, and the proper course would have been to require correction of the form.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not maintainable under section 628 and were liable to be quashed; the petition was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The Court granted relief to the petitioners by terminating the impugned action, holding that an erroneous entry in the accompanying form, without a false or misleading balance-sheet statement, did not justify prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for false or misleading corporate disclosure cannot be founded on a mere clerical error in an accompanying form unless the statutory ingredients of knowingly false or misleading statement in the relevant company document are made out.

---