Absence of reasonable excuse under the Companies Act controls liability for failure to file the statement of affairs.

It explains that a default in filing the statement of affairs under Section 454 is punishable only when it is made without reasonable excuse, so the complainant must first establish the absence of justification. The text notes that where an ex-director claims lack of access to company records and the evidence does not show possession of all material documents or wilful default, the prosecution fails to prove the offence. It also states that Section 633 may relieve an officer who acted honestly and reasonably, with the result that the conviction was not sustainable and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant's failure to submit the statement of affairs under Section 454(5) of the Companies Act was without reasonable excuse, and whether the conviction could be sustained in the light of Section 633 of the Companies Act.

Analysis: Section 454 of the Companies Act imposes a duty on ex-directors and other responsible officers to submit the statement of affairs within the prescribed time, and Section 454(5) penalises only a default made without reasonable excuse. The absence of reasonable excuse is an essential ingredient of the offence, so the initial burden lies on the complainant to establish that the default was not justified. The record showed that the appellant had asserted lack of access to the company records and the evidence did not establish that he had possession of all material documents or that the default was wilful. The Court also found that the Official Liquidator's evidence did not satisfactorily prove absence of reasonable excuse, and that Section 633 empowered the Court to grant relief where the officer had acted honestly and reasonably.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove that the default was without reasonable excuse, and the conviction could not be sustained. The appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---