JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. —The present application has been filed by the Official Liquidator of M/s.Sudharshan Cements & Multi projects Limited (hereinafter referred as the Company in liquidation) against the respondents under sections 454 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. It is alleged that the Company in liquidation was ordered to be wound-up by this Court vide its order dated 21.02.2003 in S.B. Company Petition No. 37/1996 and the Official Liquidator was appointed to act as its Liquidator. As per the record, respondents were holding the post of Director and in terms of Section 454 of the Act of 1956, statements of affairs in the prescribed form were required to be filed in the office of the applicant. The statement was to be filed within 21 days from the date of passing of the winding up orders along with an affidavit of concurrence of other Ex-Director, who have not signed the statement of affairs. 3. Submission of the applicant is that he had issued notices in Form 55 under Rule 124 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 to the respondents vide registered letter dated 19.12.2003, 05.01.2004, 25.06.2004, 14.02.2008 and 04.03.2008 directing the Ex-Director of the Companies in liquidation to submit the statement of affairs but with no response. In these circumstances, he has prayed to summon the accused Directors and try them under Section 454 of the Companies Act. 4. Notices were issued and reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been submitted that Company in liquidation was wound up on 21.02.2003 but all records including entire books of accounts, correspondences with debtors/creditors/contractors etc. recovery, institutions, share holders, etc. including all respective files, and other valuable records of company were lying since closure of factory in December 1996 at the only places belonging and available to company at either Company''s Registered office at D-6, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur or at Administrative block in Factory premises at village Danvaw, Post: Akra Bhatta, Tehsil: Abu Road. including all respective files, and other valuable records of company were lying since closure of factory in December 1996 at the only places belonging and available to company at either Company''s Registered office at D-6, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur or at Administrative block in Factory premises at village Danvaw, Post: Akra Bhatta, Tehsil: Abu Road. It is submitted that factory was located in a state declared tribal area spreading into more than 20 bigha of rocky land with dense cover all around and the factory was running into one or other trouble since inception in 1986 had to be finally closed in December 1996 because of poor quality of cement produced, heavy recession in demand of cement produced by Mini Cement Plant from year 1994-95, Non grant of NOC from Environment Angle by Central Govt. to implement its expansion plan and the mounting loses since inception because of defective plant which could never achieve even break even point. All concerned including Board of Directors, Share Holders, State Govt. through RIICO, All India Financial Institutions, Bankers SBBJ etc. were informed of all happenings from time to time and pleadings to take over the factory was also made to IDBI after the Security & Law and Order problem became uncontrollable by financially starved management. Tribles settled in adjoining villages used to intrude during nights, stone the security guards & thefts became a daily affair. Police was helpless because of huge boundary, adjoining rocky & dense green cover. Finally on 06.07.2001, around four & half years after it''s closure, with orders of DRT the factory was attached. Entire control of the inventories and assets both movable & immovable along with valuable records comprising of all books of accounts, files etc. kept in the Administrative block of the factory went into possession of the Financial Institutions. Unfortunately Registered Office of SCMPL at D-6, Meera Marg, Bank Park, Jaipur was also seized by Tehsildar, Jaipur against warrant Kurki ELR/Rajya/101/98-99/2063 dated 27/07/1999 along with all records simultaneously. Thus, entire record of the company went into possession of Hon''ble Debt Recovery Tribunal & Tehsildar from year 2001 and remained in their possession on the day of winding up order passed on 21.02.2003 and thereafter. None of the record could have either been removed or were removed by any of the Directors. Thus, entire record of the company went into possession of Hon''ble Debt Recovery Tribunal & Tehsildar from year 2001 and remained in their possession on the day of winding up order passed on 21.02.2003 and thereafter. None of the record could have either been removed or were removed by any of the Directors. It is further submitted that the Official Liquidator did not share the records although respondents personally visited the office on dates mentioned in reply and it was only after the directions by this Hon''ble Court that inspection was allowed to be carried out but only two files were made available. It is stated that the OL directed all the institutions and banks to hand over all statutory records and books of accounts of the Company and finally the Official Liquidator asked the respondents to submit statement of affairs in Form No. 57 when the statement of affairs was ultimately filed with the OL on 22.01.2016. It is also pointed out that the earlier registered letters as stated by the OL were never received by the respondents and they were incapacitated to file the statement of affairs as per their expansion. Additional affidavit has been filed by K.C.Taparia stating as under :- "2. That M/s Sudarshan Cements & Multi-projects Limited was ordered to be wound up by this Hon''ble High Court vide its order dated 21.02.2003 passed in S.B. Company Petition no. 37/1996. The applicant has filed the captioned application under section 454 of Companies Act, 1956 against the ex-directors of the Company in liquidation, alleging non-filing of the statement of affairs within the prescribed time period. Against the said application, a reply was submitted by the Respondent No. 1 denying all the allegations made by the applicant. In the present dispute, Respondent No. 1 filed an application for issuing directions to Official Liquidator i.e. the Applicant for providing the record for inspection. The said application was allowed by this Hon''ble High Court vide order dated 9.10.2015 and it was directed that respondents be allowed to inspect the record so the Company in liquidation. 3. That subsequently, Statement of Affairs were filed by the Respondents on 22.01.2016 on the basis of record provided by the Official Liquidator. This fact has already been brought to the notice of this Hon''ble Court. 3. That subsequently, Statement of Affairs were filed by the Respondents on 22.01.2016 on the basis of record provided by the Official Liquidator. This fact has already been brought to the notice of this Hon''ble Court. The Respondent herein feels that he would be severally prejudiced if certain subsequent developments and additional documents that are relevant for proper adjudication of the present application are not brought on record of this Hon''ble High Court. It is relevant to state herein that upon filing of the Statement of Affairs by the Respondent on 22.1.2016 herein, the Official Liquidator''s office sought certain clarifications and pointed out certain defects and infirmities in the said Statement of Affairs vide letter dated 28.1.2016. Thereafter, the Respondent herein has vide several communications i.e. Letter dated 30.1.2016, 2.2.2016, 8.2.2016, 12.2.2016 coupled with personal visits to the Official Liquidator''s office on various occasion provided the necessary clarifications and also extended his full cooperation for removing the defects pointed out by the Office liquidator. Even though most of the queries/clarifications sought by the Office Liquidator were repetitive, the Respondent herein diligently and pro-actively satisfied the Official Liquidator on each & every point. On 22.03.2016, the Respondent again submitted revised Statement of Affairs as of 21.02.2003. It is relevant to state here that on perusal of the latest communication from the Official Liquidator''s office dated 12.5.2016, would reveal that the Respondent has successfully met all the infirmities pointed out by the Official Liquidator, barring three minor issues pertaining to "Fixed assets mainly Furniture, Fixtures, Acs & ceiling fans", "Maruti 800 car" and regarding few "share certificates". These issues are also of no consequence as the Office Liquidator''s office has been not been able to consider the explanation given by the Respondent on the said 8 issues. Thus statement of affair was first filed on 22.1.2016 and then revised statement of affairs filed on 22.3.2016. By means of this Affidavit, I wish to place on record the following relevant documents: i Official liquidator''s letter dated 28.1.2016 vide which certain deficiencies were pointed out in the Statement of Affairs, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A; ii. Reply dated 30.1.2016 submitted by Respondent No. 1 vide which all the alleged deficiencies were clarified and instructions sought for filing of revised statement of affairs, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B; iii. Reply dated 30.1.2016 submitted by Respondent No. 1 vide which all the alleged deficiencies were clarified and instructions sought for filing of revised statement of affairs, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B; iii. Reminder letter dated 2.2.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 1, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-C; iv. Detailed reply dated 8.2.2016 issued by Respondent No. 1 submitting para-wise reply to each and every deficiencies pointed out by Official Liquidator vide its letter dated 28.1.2016, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-D; v. Letter dated 2.9.2016 by Official Liquidator alleging that no information was provided by the Respondents against the letter dated 28.1.2016, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-E; vi. Reply dated 9.2.2016 submitted by Respondent No. 2 requesting the official liquidator to admit the clarifications submitted by the Respondents vide its earlier letters dated 30.1.2016, 2.2.2016 & 8.2.2016, copy whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-F; vii. Additional reply dated 12.2.2016 issued by Respondent No. 1 requesting the official Liquidator to reconsider the clarification already submitted by him, copy where of is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-G. Viii. Another letter dated 27.2.2016 issued by Office Liquidator instructing us to filed revised statement of affairs as of 21.2.2003 and sought some more clarification asking for same information/clarification as sought earlier, copy of letter whereof is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-H. ix. Revised Statement of Affairs and provisional balance sheet were filed by the Respondent No. 1 promptly on 22.3.2016 along with the covering letter. A copy of the letter dated 22.3.2016 along with statement of Affairs and provisional balance sheet is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-I x. Again a Letter dated 12.5.2016 issued by the Official liquidator asking for same information as sought earlier. A copy is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-J; and, xi. Reply dated 27.5.2016 by Respondent no.q vide which para wise clarification was again submitted and request for opportunity of personally clarifying the disputes, if any made. A copy is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-J; and, xi. Reply dated 27.5.2016 by Respondent no.q vide which para wise clarification was again submitted and request for opportunity of personally clarifying the disputes, if any made. A copy is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-K. It is humbly submitted that the aforesaid subsequent development and additional documents are critical to the proper adjudication and disposal of the present Application and may therefore may kindly be allowed to be placed on record in the interest of justice and be considered at the time of final disposal of the present application." 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents were not reasonably and bona fidly prevented from filing their statement of affairs although they were always ready to do the same. Learned Counsel relies on the judgments passed by this Court reported in (2015) 188 Company Cas 205 (Raj) Official Liquidator of Asup Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. Mahendra Kumar Jain and Others ., (1996) Company Cas Vol. 86 Page 99-Haryana Electro Steel Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. Jagdish Gupta and Others, (2013) 176 Company Cas 547 (Mad), 1974 P.V.R.S. Manikumar v. Official Liquidator, High Court Madras and Others, 1974 (44) Company Case 381 - Official Liquidator, R.S.Motors P.Ltd v. Jajit Singh SA Whney and Another, (2008) 142 Company Case 626 (Guj)-Gujarat Inject Ltd. v. Yogesh R.Mankodi and Others, 1975 (45) Company Cas. 136 - Official Liquidator v. Raghawa Desikachar and Others S.B.Company Appel No. 100/2010,- Official Liquidator of M/s. Lath Steels Private Limited (in Liquidation) v. Pawan Kumar Lath and Bimal Kumar Lath dated 19.02.2016 1977 (47) Company Cases 254, - Official Liquidator, Gurco Pharma P. Ltd. v. S.Nihal Singh Goindi and Others, 1999 (96) Company Cases; Sajida Book Shop v. Kaumadi Exporters (P) Ltd. (In Liquidation) and Others, 1999 (96) Compnay Cases 548, International Engineers and Projects v. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd, 1991(71) Company Cases 101,-Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. B.K.Bedi and Others And (2011) 4 CHN 67 -Jameshedpur Cements Ltd. (In Liquidation) and Baldev Raj Taneja v. Official Liquidator. 6. Having heard both the parties, I find that the records of the Company were not in possession of the Directors from the day the Company was wound up till some of the documents were made available to them in 2015. 7. 6. Having heard both the parties, I find that the records of the Company were not in possession of the Directors from the day the Company was wound up till some of the documents were made available to them in 2015. 7. Section 454 of the Act of 1956 casts an obligation inter alia on the Directors of the Company to file a statement of affairs within 21 days or within such extended time and extending three months from that date or as the Official Liquidator or Court may with special reasons grant. Non filing of statement of affairs is punishable with imprisonment for a term of 2 years or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- for everyday during which the default continues or with both. Section 454(5) of the Act of 1956 however, mentions that the timely filing should be without reasonable excuse. From the statements and submissions which have come on record, I find that the Official Liquidator has allowed respondents to collect the record for the purpose of submission of statement of affairs belatedly as admittedly respondents did not have the record to their access. They had thus a reasonable excuse for not furnishing the statement of affairs. In the absence of records, it would be impossible for them to submit statement of affairs. I, therefore, find the prosecution has failed to prove that failure of the respondents to submit statement of affairs was without reasonable excuse moreover, the statement of affairs has now been submitted and even the revised statement of affairs has been submitted. Although, there is a delay, the delay cannot be attracted wholly to the Directors. If the criminal proceedings are lodged identifying the same would result in proving the guilt of the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 8. Keeping in view the detail affidavit quoted above and the purpose of Section 454 of the Act of 1956, I discharge the respondents of the charge of not submitting statement of affairs within time in view of the explanation. 9. The proceedings are accordingly directed to be dropped.