Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 371 (JHR)

Pawan Biscuit Company Pvt. v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-15

R.R.PRASAD

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court : This application is directed against the order dated 22.11.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/1 Case No.104 of 1988 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 220(3)/162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 has been taken against the petitioners. Further the order dated 23.05.2001 whereby the petitioners were directed to appear in the case, has also been sought to be quashed. 2. On perusal of the record, it does appear that on account of non-filing of the balance sheet of profit and loss of the Company within the time stipulated under the provision of the Companies Act, a complaint was lodged upon which, the cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 220(3) read with Section 162(1) of the Companies Act was taken against these petitioners. 3. After the cognizance of the offences, as aforesaid, was taken, the Companies Law Board, Eastern Region Branch, Calcutta compounded the offences whereby the Company was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-whereas each of the Directors was directed to pay a sum of Rs.750/-, which amount was deposited. 4. Thereupon, an application was filed on 11.05.2001 by the Special. P.P. under the Companies Act, stating therein that the offences have been compounded and the complainant does not want to proceed with the case but on that application, no order was passed. 5. Thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioners for discharging them from the accusation as the offences have already been compounded but the court instead of discharging the petitioners, passed an order on 23.05.2001, directing the petitioners to put appearance. 6. The said order seems to be quite illegal, as the court should have discharged the petitioners in the light of the application filed by the Special P.P., stating therein that the offences have been compounded and the complainant does not intend to proceed with the case. 7. Thus, the learned court below seems to have committed illegality, in not accepting the prayer of the petitioners for discharging them from the accusation. 8. Accordingly, order dated 22.11.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/1 Case No.104 of 1988 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 220(3)/162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 has been taken against the petitioners and also the order dated 23.05.2001 are hereby, quashed. 9. 8. Accordingly, order dated 22.11.1988 passed by learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/1 Case No.104 of 1988 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences under Section 220(3)/162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 has been taken against the petitioners and also the order dated 23.05.2001 are hereby, quashed. 9. In the result, this application is allowed.