https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102434 The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent in a case involving the non-filing of a company's balance sheet within the required timeframe under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent was an "officer in default" as no evidence established his knowing involvement in the default. The lack of specific averments or evidence linking the respondent to the offense led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the acquittal. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 18:19:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102434 The court upheld the acquittal of the respondent in a case involving the non-filing of a company's balance sheet within the required timeframe under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondent was an "officer in default" as no evidence established his knowing involvement in the default. The lack of specific averments or evidence linking the respondent to the offense led to the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the acquittal. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102434