1978 (11) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the petitioner was arrayed as the third accused; therein the company was the first accused and its managing director was the second accused. The aforesaid accused 1 and 2 having pleaded guilty, the case against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty, was split up and renumbered. The court below on a consideration of the materials placed before it found the petitioner guilty. The counsel for the petitioner contended that it was by overlooking the provisions of sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act and without putting to the petitioner the evidence appearing against him on this particular aspect when questioned under section 313 of the Cr. PC. that the court below concluded that the petitioner was a director of the company during the ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y officer, but only those officers of the company who are in default who would be liable to be punished. The meaning of "officer who is in default" is as given in section 5 of the Act which reads as follows: "For the purpose of any provision in this Act which enacts that an officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to any punishment or penalty, whether by way of imprisonment, fine or otherwise, the expression 'officer who is in default' means any officer of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default, non-compliance, failure, refusal or contravention mentioned in that provision, or who knowingly and wilfully authorises or permits such default, non-compliance, failure, refusal or contravention." (Emphasis supplied). ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... where there is no managing agent, secretaries and treasurers, manager or secretary, by two directors of the company, one of whom shall be the managing director where there is one." (The effect of insertion of section 324A of the Act by Act 17 of 1969 also may be noticed.) The return could be signed by a director and the manager or secretary of the company. It is, therefore, evident that the return in the present case could have been signed by the managing director and the manager or secretary of the company to comply with the requirements of section 159 of the Act. PW-1, the clerk in the office of the respondent, examined in court has not stated that the company had no manager or secretary. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate appea....