Separate corporate defaults create distinct offences; director cannot rely on one omission to avoid liability for another.

A director could not escape liability for failure to lay the balance-sheet before the company by relying on the separate default of not convening the annual general meeting; the omission to place the balance-sheet before the company was treated as an independent obligation, and liability was upheld. The prosecution also did not amount to double punishment, because failure to hold the meeting and failure to lay the balance-sheet were distinct offences capable of separate punishment. The plea of double jeopardy therefore failed. Limited relief was granted by reducing the sentence and directing refund of any excess fine collected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a director could avoid liability for failure to lay the balance-sheet before the company by relying on the very default that no general meeting had been held, and (ii) whether conviction and punishment under both the provisions amounted to double punishment for the same offence.

Issue (i): Whether a director could avoid liability for failure to lay the balance-sheet before the company by relying on the very default that no general meeting had been held.

Analysis: The default under the provision requiring the laying of the balance-sheet was treated as independent of the failure to hold the annual general meeting. A director could not rely upon his own default in not convening the meeting to defeat liability for the separate omission to place the balance-sheet before the company.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and liability under the balance-sheet provision was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether conviction and punishment under both the provisions amounted to double punishment for the same offence.

Analysis: The provisions created two distinct offences, one for failure to hold the general meeting and another for failure to lay the balance-sheet before the company in general meeting. The same transaction could give rise to separate offences, and therefore the prosecution did not amount to double jeopardy.

Conclusion: The plea of double punishment failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was not accepted on the merits, but the sentence was reduced by way of limited relief, with refund of any excess fine collected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates separate obligations with separate penal consequences, breach of each obligation constitutes an independent offence, and a party cannot defeat liability by relying on his own default in relation to the other obligation.

---