Statutory default cannot be avoided by relying on one's own failure to convene the required general meeting.

A director charged with breach of statutory duties under the Companies Act, 1913 could not avoid liability by relying on the absence of a general meeting where the accused officers were themselves responsible for that omission. The Court held that the duty to prepare and file the shareholders' list and summary, and to lay the balance-sheet and profit and loss account before the company in general meeting, was not extinguished by the failure to hold the meeting. The obligation to convene the meeting was a separate duty with its own penalty and did not displace liability for the statutory defaults. The contrary view was rejected, and the acquittal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a director charged with default under section 32 or section 131 of the Companies Act, 1913 could avoid liability on the ground that no general meeting of the company had been held.

Analysis: Section 32 required the list of shareholders and summary to be prepared and filed after the first or only ordinary general meeting of the year, and section 131 required the balance-sheet and profit and loss account to be laid before the company in general meeting. The absence of a meeting did not extinguish the statutory duty where the accused officers were themselves responsible for the meeting not being held. A person charged with breach of the statutory obligation cannot rely on his own default to defeat the charge. Section 76 created a separate obligation to hold the meeting and imposed a distinct penalty, but it did not limit or displace liability under sections 32 and 131. The reasoning was also applied to the continuing nature of the default and to the inapplicability of the contrary view taken below.

Conclusion: The defence that no general meeting had been held was not available, and liability under sections 32 and 131 could arise notwithstanding that omission.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was sent back for trial on the merits in accordance with the legal position stated.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused who is responsible for the non-holding of a meeting cannot rely on that very default to avoid liability for a statutory breach that depends upon the meeting having been held.

---