Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2135 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Arpit Fabrics (P. ) Ltd

2008-09-11

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant - Union of India, through Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, against the Judgement of acquittal dated 19.8.2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Jaipur City, (hereinafter to be referred in short the learned trial Court) Jaipur in case No. 140/2002, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under section 159/162 of the Companies Act,1956. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Registrar, Companies, Rajasthan,Jaipur filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Rajasthan, Jaipur under section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956 to the effect that the according to section 166 and its sub sections the company was required to hold its Annual General meeting for the year 1995 by 30.9.1995 and further to submit its annual return within 60 days of the holding of the meeting in terms of provisions of section 159 of the Companies Act and its sub-sections. However, the accused-company failed to submit the return and even after expiry of 2,264 days upto the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 14.2.2002 the accused company failed to submit the annual return. Although default notices were issued and served upon the accused persons but still they failed to submit the return and thus, committed default in terms of the provisions of section 159, read with section 162 of the Act and thus, made themselves liable for prosecution and punishment under the provisions of section 159 read with section 162 of the Act. It was also averred that pending decision upon the complaint, the accused persons be directed to submit annual return in accordance with the provisions of section 614A and 611(2) of the Act Cost of the proceedings were also demanded along with the request that the offence made out against the accused persons be treated as an offence continuous in nature. 3. On the basis of this complaint the learned trial Court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under section 159/162 of the Companies Act,1956. Thereafter, the substance of the offence was read over to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. From the side of complainant statement of PW1 Shiv Prakash Rawat was recovered. 5. Thereafter, the substance of the offence was read over to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 4. From the side of complainant statement of PW1 Shiv Prakash Rawat was recovered. 5. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide its judgement dated 19.8.2002 acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offence. 7. Aggrieved with the impugned judgement of acquittal dated 19.8.2002 passed by learned trial Court, the appellant Union of India has preferred the instant appeal. 8. In this appeal, Mr. Shyam Kant Sharma appearing for Mr.K.K. Sharma, Additional Solicitor General for Union of India submits that the learned trial Court completely misconstrued the statement recorded by the departmental representative. Neither the accused respondents nor company has submitted annual return within 9 years before the trial court, though for every year the annual return has to be submitted within 60/30 days, thus the accused respondents have committed offence punishable under section 159/162 of the Companies Act. Thus, impugned judgement dated 19.8.2002 passed by trial court is erroneous one and liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court. 9. Per contra Mr. O.P. Mishra with Mr. d.K. Kala, counsel for the accused respondents submit that under section 621 of the Companies Act, complaint can be filed only by the Registrar, shareholder or any person authorised by the Central Government. In this case Mr. Bhullan Singh is Assistant Registrar. Neither he has been authorised by the Central Government to file a complaint nor the complainant is Registrar. Neither complainant appeared before trial court after presentation of the complaint nor he filed any application of exemption of his personal appearance. Thus, the complainant has not made compliance of the provision of section 256 Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgement of acquittal dated 19.8.2002 passed by learned trial Court. 10. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- " Umrao v. State of Haryana AIR 2006 SC 2152 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that.."It is now well-settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgement of acquittal passed by the court below."(p.2157). 11. 11. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate (sic) Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the fact and circumstances of the case. 12. It may be stated that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the Benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this Court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgement passed by the learned appellate (sic) court and, thus appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard learned counsels for respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material available on record including the judgement above said. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgement dated 19.8.2002 passed by trial Court, I find that the trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondents. 15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Union of India fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgement of acquittal dated 19.8.2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur City, Jaipur in case No. 140/2002. *******