Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 41 (RAJ)

Sanjay Sharma v. Company Registrar

2009-01-07

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2009
Hon ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Sanjay Sharma and M/s. Ocean Capital Limited through Sanjay Sharma, against the judgment/order of Special Judge (Fake Currency Notes Cases) Court Jaipur City whereby appeal filed by the petitioner No.l against the judgment dated Feb. 1, 2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Court, Jaipur City was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 2, 2001 Bhullan Singh, Assistant Registrar Companies, Raj., Jaipur filed a complaint under section 220(3) of the Companies Act 1956 (in short 1956 Act) against M/s. Ocean Capital Ltd. through Director Sanjay Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma. M/s. Ocean Capital Ltd. was a registered company and other three accused were its directors, who were responsible officers of the company for the day today work of the Company. Under Section 210 of the 1956 Act, the balance sheet and the profit and loss account of the company for the financial year which ended during 1995-96 was to be placed before the Annual General Meeting of the Company which was to be held on 26.3.1997 and under the provisions of section 220(1) of the 1956 Act, three copies of the said balance sheet and profit and loss account were required to be submitted before the Registrar within 30 days of the date of the meeting i.e. up to 25.4.1997 but the accused had not complied with the said provisions of the 1956 Act despite reminders, the said act of the accused amounted to an offence under section 220 (3) of 1956 Act. On receiving the said complaint the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences Court) Jaipur City Jaipur took cognizance of the offence against the accused petitioners and co-accused for offence under section 220(3) of 1956 Act and they were summoned to appear before the Court. On receiving summons of the case, the accused petitioners and other co-accused appeared in the Court, who stated the particulars of the offence of which the accused petitioners and other co-accused were charged, which were denied by them. Thereafter the trial of the case was started and the prosecution examined PW.l Ajay Kumar Meena on its behalf. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the allegations which had been made against them by the prosecution. In defence three witnesses were produced. Thereafter the trial of the case was started and the prosecution examined PW.l Ajay Kumar Meena on its behalf. In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the allegations which had been made against them by the prosecution. In defence three witnesses were produced. The Special Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated Feb. 1, 2002 acquitted co-accused Ajay Sharma and Vijay Sharma of offence under section 220 (3) of 1956 Act. The petitioners were convicted of the offence under section 220 (3) of 1956 Act and sentence of fine of Rs. 450/- was imposed against each of the petitioners. In default of payment of fine the petitioners were ordered to under go simple imprisonment of 7 days each. The trial court also awarded expenses of litigation to the complainant @ Rs. 50 against each of the petitioners. Aggrieved against the judgment dated Feb. 1, 2002 of Special Judicial Magistrate the petitioner No.l filed appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City who transferred the same for disposal to the Court of Special Judge ( Fake Currency Notes cases) Court Jaipur City Jaipur who after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated March 15, 2002 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Assistant Registrar companies Bhullan Singh, who filed the complaint did not examine himself as a witness and thus the allegations made in the complaint remained wholly unproved against the petitioners but the courts below completely ignored this aspect of the case and arbitrarily convicted the accused under section 220(3) of 1956 Act. The courts below illegally held the petitioner No.l as Director/responsible officer of the Company against the provisions of section 264 and 266 of the 1956 Act. The petitioner contends that he never submitted his consent to act as Director of Company under section 264(2) and 266(1) (a) and 266(1) (b)(iii) of 1956 Act and as such he could not be held to be director of the Company but the courts below overlooked the above provisions of law and arbitrarily convicted petitioner No.l as Director of Company and petitioner no. 2 through petitioner No.l which is wholly illegal. 2 through petitioner No.l which is wholly illegal. The Courts below have wrongly held on the basis of power of attorney Ex.P.l and Ex.P.2 which show the name of petitioner No.l as subscriber of the company and which bears the signatures of petitioner No.l that he was the director of the company which is wholly illegal. 4. Mr. Ganesh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments of the petitioners. The petitioner is admittedly director of the company as is evident from Ex.P.1 and Ex. P.2., which are power of attorney given by the Board of Directors of the company. I have gone through the judgments of both the courts and in my opinion there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. The courts below only imposed the sentence of fine. The orders of the courts below do not call for any interference in revisional jurisdiction. 5. For these reasons I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the courts below. Hence this revision petition is dismissed. As the main petition has been dismissed the stay application also stands dismissed.