Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. These revisions have been taken up for analogous hearing and this common judgment shall govern all the aforesaid revisions. 2. The relevant facts for decision in these revisions are that the appellant Company in all the aforesaid revisions, was registered in the year 1988 under the Companies Act, 1956 . However, one of the three Directors of the Company died and he was the Managing Director and, therefore, the Company failed to carry on its business since the very inception and it remained dormant and if failed to file annual returns and the balance sheet before the Registrar under the Companies Act. Hence, there were cases filed against the aforesaid Company and the appellants 1 to 3 are its Directors and Officers of the Company. They were convicted under Section 159 read with Section 162{1) of the Companies Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) by the trial court in its judgment dated 27th January 1998 [Complaint Case No. 267 (C) of 1995 and others]. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Patna, confirmed the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 1998/7 of 1998 and others. However, after filing this revision, the Central Government issued a Notification under the Companies Act, 1956 providing for settlement and compounding of the offences committed by the Company and the Registrar under the Companies Act, was the authority for compounding of the offence. As per Article 3 of the Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2000, which came into force on the 1st June, 2000, there was provision for declaration by the Company, regarding the proof of payment of prescribed fee for any offence committed under the Act and seeking settlement of the offence so committed. That means, the Company may declare that it paid the prescribed fee and that it could seek compounding of the offence. The aforesaid declaration was filed before the Registrar of the Company in Form-A. Thereafter under Article 5 of the Scheme, the Company could pay a lump sum of amount as penalty for the delayed filing of the returns etc. along with the fees. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Scheme the designated authority (Registrar) shall grant immunity to the Company. The aforesaid declaration was filed before the Registrar of the Company in Form-A. Thereafter under Article 5 of the Scheme, the Company could pay a lump sum of amount as penalty for the delayed filing of the returns etc. along with the fees. Under Article 7 of the aforesaid Scheme the designated authority (Registrar) shall grant immunity to the Company. The revisionists in the supplementary affidavit submitted that they had filed the balance sheet and returns along with proper-fee before the Registrar and the photo copies of the receipts were tagged with the supplementary affidavit (Annexure-1 to the supplementary affidavit). The aforesaid receipt along with an application addressed to the Registrar (Annexure-2) was filed by the revisionists with a prayer that the revisionists be granted immunity from prosecution. There is no counter affidavit by the respondents. So the contention that the revisionists had deposited the penalty along with concerned documents for the non-filing of which they were prosecuted remains uncontroverted. Besides the above, a letter (photo copy) issued from the Registrar of the Companies, Bihar, addressed to Jawahar Prasad Karn, Advocate of the Registrar of the Companies, has been filed by the counsel who appeared on behalf of respondents. This letter shows that the petitioners (revisionists) of the concerned criminal revisions have deposited the documents on 30th August 2000 vide Office Receipt No. 50186 dated 30th August 2000. The next sentence isThe matter may be left to the Honble Court to decide the matter on its own merit." Photo copy of the receipt attached with the supplementary affidavit shows that along with documents, an amount of fine was also deposited (in total Rs. 19,800/-). So it is apparent that under the Scheme, the revisionists were entitled to immunity from prosecution (under Article 7 of the Scheme). But since the matter was pending in revision the designated authority who is Registrar of the Company, left it to the discretion of the High Court to decide the revision under the provisions of law. 3. I find that these revisions were admitted on the point of sentence only by order dated 29th June 2001 but through supplementary affidavit dated 30th April 2001 it was prayed that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the appellate court may be set aside. 4. 3. I find that these revisions were admitted on the point of sentence only by order dated 29th June 2001 but through supplementary affidavit dated 30th April 2001 it was prayed that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and the appellate court may be set aside. 4. Since the original appeal was filed on 1st April 1999 and the Company Law Settlement Scheme, 2000 came into force on 1st June 2000, the remedy available in this Scheme was not available to the appellants. Hence, I think the benefit available to the appellants may be granted to them even now. 5. In view of the letter dated 20th June 2001 submitted by the respondents lawyer before this Court as also in view of Annexures-1 & 2 to the supplementary affidavit, I think the revisionists shall be entitled to seek remedy under the Settlement Scheme framed by the Central Government through its Notification No. S.O. 529(E) dated 31st May 2000. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the orders of conviction passed by the two lower courts are fit to be set aside and the orders of sentence also deserve to meet the same fate. Subsequently, the judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the two lower courts are hereby set aside and these revisions are, accordingly, allowed. The accused revisionist shall stand acquitted and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.