ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant company application has been filed by the Official Liquidator under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"), on the ground of default of the respondents to furnish the statement of affairs. 2. As per the provisions of Section 454 of the Act of 1956, it was the duty of the Director, Manager, Secretary or other competent Officer of the company to submit the statement of affairs to the Official Liquidator within a period of 21 days from the date of the applicant - company as Official Liquidator seeking the same. On completion of 21 days in the present case, which expired on 18.09.2003, no further extension was allowed by the Official Liquidator for filing the statement of affairs. The notices were sent on 08.03.2004 and 27.01.2005 to the respondents under Section 124 of the Company (Court) Rules of 1959, but the same were not delivered to them. The applicant - Official Liquidator wrote a letter on 16.04.2004 to the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi, along with a request to get the aforesaid notices served upon the respondent No. 3. Finally, the notices were served on 21.02.2005 through the Superintendent of Police, Rewari. 3. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mehta, submits that the respondents were under a statutory obligation to have submitted the statement of affairs. Counsel for the applicant submits that the latest balance-sheet of the respondents was made on 20.12.1997 and the winding up order itself was passed on 29.08.2003. Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that last date of submission of the statement of affairs to be filed was 18.09.2003 in accordance with the mandate of Section 454 of the Act of 1956. Counsel for the applicant submits that notices were given on 08.03.2004 and 27.01.2005 to the respondents and after due service, the respondents were held responsible for non-filing of the statement of affairs and are to be punished under Section 454 of the Act of 1956. Counsel for the applicant submits that incorporation of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was made on 15.05.2005 in the presence of the respondent No. 1 and since there was no objection, they were impleaded as party to the present company application and the order was never challenged by the respondents thereafter. Counsel for the applicant submits that incorporation of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was made on 15.05.2005 in the presence of the respondent No. 1 and since there was no objection, they were impleaded as party to the present company application and the order was never challenged by the respondents thereafter. Counsel for the applicant also submits that the respondents cannot raise technical lacuna to defeat the mandate of Section 454 of the Act of 1956 and the same has to be strictly complied with. 4. Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Tiwari, however, submits that the procedure governing the complaint of the Official Liquidator is in the Criminal Procedure Code and the criminal law has to be adhered to strictly. Counsel for the respondents also submits that alteration of array of accused in the complaint was unlawful. Counsel for the respondents submitted that there was a reasonable excuse available to the respondents for not being able to adhere to the mandate of Section 454 of the Act of 1956 as the documents in question were not in their possession and were in possession of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short "DRI"). Counsel for the respondents submits that cooperate office of the respondent company was raided by the DRI in the year 2000 and certain documents in record of the company were seized during the alleged raid. Counsel for the respondents also submits that the respondent No. 1 was summoned by the DRI and he joined investigation and was arrested in the year 2002 and was sent to the judicial custody. Counsel for the respondents submits that thereafter, he was released on bail by the Delhi High Court. Counsel for the respondents thus submits that even before the complaint was filed on 17.05.2002, the documents required for preparation of the statement of affairs were in possession of the DRI. 5. Counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court to the application filed on behalf of the respondents for inspection of the documents maintained by the Official Liquidator - applicant so that they could come to know about the information regarding the documents in possession of the Official Liquidator for preparation of the statement of affairs. The document is Exhibit-D4. Counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention of this Court to the examination and cross-examination of the Official Liquidator. The document is Exhibit-D4. Counsel for the respondents has also drawn attention of this Court to the examination and cross-examination of the Official Liquidator. The relevant portion of which reads as follows: ^^t;iqj es 'kkldh; lekid ds in ij esjk inLFkkiu fnukad 03-08-2017 dks gqvkA blls igys bl dk;kZy; esa dkSu&dkSu 'kkldh; lekid ds :i esa inLFkkfir Fks mudh eq>s tkudkjh ugh gSA ijarq 2008 es oh-ds- [kqcpUnkuh 'kkldh; lekid FksA eSus oh-ds- [kqcpUnkuh th ds lkFk rFkk oh-ds- [kqcpUnkuh us esjs lkFk dHkh dk;Z ugha fd;kA ,XthfcV ch-1 ij ,s ls ch fdlds gLrk{kj gS eSa ugha tkurk ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,XthfcV 1 ls ftl izdj.k esa ikfjr gqvk gS ml izdj.k esa jsLiksUMsaV la[;k 1 ls 3 i{kdkj ugha FksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,XthfcV 2 esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 lrh'k pUn 'kekZ ,oa vizkFkh la[;k 3 eqds'k pUn 'kekZ ds uke o irs vafdr ugh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd izdj.k la[;k 28@2009 esa vizkFkhZ la[;k 4 fot; 'kekZ dksbZ i{kdkj ugha gSA geus bUgs xyr :i ls i{kdkj cuk;k gSA ;g eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 eqds'k pUn 'kekZ lh&16] [ktku cLrh ds fuoklh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 o 3 }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s fifV'ku ds tokc o mlds lkFk nLrkostksa dk v/;;u ugha fd;k ,XthfcV Mh&2 ,oa ,XthfcV Mh&3 dh eq>s dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gSA eq>s ;g Hkh tkudkjh ugha gS fd ,XthfcV Mh&2 o Mh&3 ds }kjk MhvkjvkbZ us fnYyh dh vnkyr esa vizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) izdj.k izLrqr fd;k eq>s dEiuh vf/kfu;e dh mDr /kkjk 456¼2½ dh tkudkjh gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd dEiuh vf/kfu;e dh mDr /kkjk ds rgr 'kkldh; lekIkd okbZfUMx vi dEiuh dh leLr lEifr;ksa dks MhEM dLVksfM;u gksrk gSA ;g eq>s irk ugha fd okbfUMx vi ds vkns'k ds ckn gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDRkl dh fdu&fdu lEifr;ksa dks 'kkldh; lekid }kjk vius dCts esa fy;k x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs }kjk vius dCts esa fy;k x;kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs }kjk ,slh dksbZ bUosaVjh Hkh bl QkbZy esa is'k ugha dh xbZ fd okbZfUMx vi dEiuh fdu&fdu lEifr;ksa dk its'ku fy;k x;kA ;g eq>s tkudkjh ugah gS fd gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDl ds jftLVMZ vkWfQLk vkSj dEiuh esa j[ks nLrkostkrksa dks MhvkjvkbZ us vius dCts es ys fy;k gSA eSus MhvkjvkbZ ls ,slh dksbZ tkudkjh djus ds fy, i= O;ogkj ugha fd;k ftlls ;g irk yx lds fd dEiuh ds D;k&Dk nLrkostkr MhvkjvkbZ us vius dCts es fy;sA eSus gekjs dk;kZy; esa miyC/k dk;kZy; i=koyh ls Hkh ;g tkudkjh djus dk iz;kl ugha fd;k fd esjs iwoZorh 'kkldh; lekIr us gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDl fyfeVsM+ ds dk;kZy; o QSDVªh ls Mhvkj vkbZ us D;k&Dk nLrkostkr tCr fd;s bldh tkudkjh gks ldsA gekjs dk;kZy; es fjfLiV ,oa fMLisp foHkkx dh eksgj dks eSa igpkurk gwWA ,xthfcV Mh&4 ij ,Dl ls ok; LFkku ij gekjs dk;kZy; dh eksgj yxh gqbZ gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs dk;kZy; gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDl dEiuh ds D;k&Dk nLrkostkr ekStwn gS bldh eq>s rQrhy ls tkudkjh ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,XthfcV Mh&4 ds }kjk vizkFkhZx.k ds izfrfuf/k us vkjvkslh ls nLrkostkr ds fujh{k.k djok;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;k ;g dguk lgh gS fd ,XthfcV Mh&4 vkjvkslh de vkW;y dks lEcksf/kr dj fy[kk x;k gSA ,XthfcV Mh&5 gekjs dk;kZy; esa bUlisD'ku dh Qhl dk QkZesV gS ;g dguk lgh gSA ;g dguk Hkh lgh gS fd vkjvkslh de vkW;y ,d gh gS rFkk ,d gh O;fDr lu 2011 ls ds in ij inkflu gksrk gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs }kjk lk{; gsrq izLrqr fd;s x;s 'kiFk i= ds pj.k 2] 3] 4 ,oa 7 esa vafdr rF; fifV'ku esa vafdr ugha gSA ;g 'kiFk&i= odhy dh ,MokbTk ij gh esjs }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA eS bl ckjs esa dksbZ fVIi.kh@desUVl ugha dj ldrk fd gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDl fyfeVsM ds dk;kZy; ,oa QSDVªh esa Mh vkj vkbZ }kjk jsM fd;s tkus ds dkj.k nLrkostkr MhvkjvkbZ ds dCts esa gks o vf/kdka'k nLrkostkr 'kkldh; lekid ds dk;kZy; es gksus ds dkj.k gh vizkFkhZx.k LVsVesaV vkWQ vQs;jl QkbZy djus esa vl{ke gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 }kjk izLrqr tokc fifV'ku dks ugh i<+kA ;g dguk lgh gS fd geus dksVZ ds lkeus /kkjk 126 o 129 dEiuh dksVZ :y 1959 ds rgr pkVsZM vdkmUVsV dks fu;qDr dj LVsVesaV djok;s tkus ckcr dksbZ izkFkZuk i= izLrqr ugh fd;kA ;g Hkh eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS fd vizkFkhZx.k }kjk LVsVesaV vkWQ vQs;jl nLrkostkr ds vHkko esa rS;kj fd;k tkuk muds dUVªksy ls ckgj gks vkSj blh dkj.k vizkFkhZx.k LVsVesaV vkQ vQs;jl izLrqr ugh dj lds gksA eq>s bl ckr dh Hkh dksbZ tkudkjh ugha gS fd gf"kZrk vkWjxsfuDl dh leLr lEifr;ka iatkc us'kuy cSad esa ca/kd gks rFkk iatkc us'kuy cSad us gh mDr dEiuh dh leLr lEifr;ksa dk cspku MhvkjVh fnYyh ds vkns'k ls fd;s tkus ds rF;ksa dh tkudkjh djus dk iz;kl gekjs dk;kZy; esa miyC/k i=koyh ls gh ugh fd;kA^^ 6. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Official Liquidator of M/s. Rajasthan Jeevan Nidhi Sanchaya Aarthik Prabandh Limited v. Shri Ravindra Kumar Saxena & Ors.: S.B. Company Application No. 39/2004 in S.B. Company Petition No. 1/1994, decided on 22.02.2019. The relevant portion of the judgment (supra) reads as follows: "Thus, this Court finds that the Directors were prevented from submitting the statements of affairs hence in absence of the record there was no question for the Directors to have filed statements of affairs. This fact was known to the Official Liquidator at the relevant time but he has not taken any steps in this regard. The action of the then Official Liquidator is found to be not in consonance with the provisions of the Companies Act and he has failed to perform his duty under the act of 1956, which has resulted in the petition remaining pending since long. It appears that the petition for initiating Section 454 proceedings against the respondents has been filed by the Official Liquidator after ten years of the passing of the order in order to save his own skin. It has come on record from the documents which have been exhibited that time and again the Official Liquidator was asked by the Directors to obtain the documents which were lying with the Police Station at various places. Exhibit D-6 is a letter dated 06.10.2006 written by Ravindra Kumar Saxena but the Official Liquidator did not take steps. The Official Liquidator in his statement has failed to give satisfactory reply. The action of then Official Liquidator is deprecated. Keeping in view aforesaid facts, I find that this company application moved under Section 454 deserves to be dismissed and the respondent Directors are entitled for acquittal from the charge under Section 454 of the Companies Act. Accordingly, company application is dismissed. Respondent/Directors are discharged." 7. Counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Official Liquidator of R.S. Motors (P) Ltd. v. Jagjit Singh Sawhney & Anr. reported in ILR 1974 Delhi 243, wherein the Delhi High Court has held thus: "That any excuse that would reasonable suggest that the accused could not comply with the provision of law is a reasonable excuse. reported in ILR 1974 Delhi 243, wherein the Delhi High Court has held thus: "That any excuse that would reasonable suggest that the accused could not comply with the provision of law is a reasonable excuse. If the books of the company are not available then it can be urged on behalf of the directors that there is a reasonable excuse for not submitting the statement of affairs of the company ordered to be wound up. The reasonableness of the excuse of the accused for not furnishing the statement of affairs would very from case to case, and would depend entirely on the kind of situation that the directors founds themselves in when called upon to submit the statement. Where, as in the instant case, on account of the seizure of the record of the company by the police and the lack of adequate opportunity to the accused to inspect the record, a limited inspection whereof was allowed by the Police to the accused, it was impossible for the directors of the company to prepare the statement of affairs, the directors would not be held guilty of default in not filing the statement of affairs within the time prescribed by law and was clearly a reasonable excuse for not submitting the statement of affairs." 8. Counsel for the respondents has further drawn attention of this Court to Section 454(5) of the Act of 1956, which reads as follows: "454. STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS TO BE MADE TO OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR: (1). ...... (5) If any person, without reasonable excuse, makes default in complying with any of the requirements of this section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to 2 [one thousand] rupees for every day during which the default continues, or with both. (5A) The 1 [Tribunal] by which the winding up order is made or the provisional liquidator is appointed, may take cognisance of an offence under sub-section (5) upon receiving a complaint of facts constituting such an offence and trying the offence itself in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), for the trial of summons cases by magistrates. 9. 9. Counsel for the respondents with the strength of the precedent law as cited herein above submits that though it is true that the statement of affairs has not been furnished within the stipulated period of 21 days as provided under Section 454 of the Act of 1956, however, it is on account of 'reasonable excuse'. The reason coming forward is that the DRI conducted a raid upon the respondent company in the year 2000 and seized certain documents, which disabled the respondents to file the statement of affairs. Counsel for the respondents mentioned certain documents being in possession of the Official Liquidator for which an application was moved by them to inspect those documents, which was not made available to them so as to enable them to make the efforts to file the statement of affairs. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the exhibits as well as examination and cross-examination of the Official Liquidator, this Court finds that the respondents were prevented from filing the statement of affairs due to the record being not available with them. The question of fact to prove the complaint was not substantiated by the Official Liquidator as his examination and cross-examination does not reflect the prima facie intention of the respondents to disregard the mandate of Section 454 of the Act of 1956. This Court has also seen the application (Exhibit-D4) by which the respondents had sought the details of certain documents, which were available with the Official Liquidator, but the same were not provided to the respondents. This Court finds that the inventory of the documents is not on record, which could suggest that the respondents intentionally deviated from the mandate of Section 454 of the Act of 1956. On a bare perusal of the provisions of Section 454(5) of the Act of 1956 so also looking to the precedent law cited by the counsel for the respondents, this Court finds that since the Official Liquidator could not prove that the respondents had sufficient material to file the statement of affairs of the company where the order of winding up has been passed, then it shall fall within the ambit of 'reasonable excuse', which is exception of Section 454 of the Act of 1956. Reasonableness of the respondent - company for not furnishing the statement of affairs is reflects on the face of the documents as on account of the seizure of the record of the company by the DRI as well as certain documents being in possession of the Official Liquidator and lack of opportunity for the respondents to inspect the record, it was impossible for them to prepare the statement of affairs. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the instant company application filed under Section 454 of the Act of 1956 deserves to be dismissed and the respondents are entitled for acquittal of the charges levelled under Section 454 of the Act of 1956. 12. Accordingly, the company application is dismissed and the respondents are discharged from the charges levelled against them.