H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) Petitioner No. 1, Mau Cold Storage and Khandsari. Sugar Factory P. Ltd., is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and petitioners. Nos. 2 to 7 are its directors. On October 4, 1984, respondent No. 1, Registrar of Companies, U.P., filed a complaint against the petitioners before respondent No. 2, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, alleging that Section 220 of the Act places a statutory obligation on the petitioners to file with the Registrar of Companies the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account in the prescribed form duly placed in the annual general meeting of the company, within thirty days of the annual general meeting and, in case no annual general meeting is held, within thirty days of the due date of the annual general meeting. The petitioners were thus required to file, with the Registrar of Companies, the balance-sheet, and the profit and loss account of petitioner No. 1 for the period ending March 31, 1979, latest by October 30, 1979. As the petitioners failed to file the said balance-sheet and the profit and loss account within the stipulated time and were knowingly and wilfully continuing the said default, they were liable to be punished for contravening the provisions of Section 220 of the Act...
(2.) The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, took cognizance of the complaint and issued processes for enforcing the presence of the petitioners before him. Aggrieved; the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Section 633^2) of the Act, and pray that the complaint filed against them by the Registrar of Companies as also their prosecution under Section 220 of the Act pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur (Criminal Case No. 8235 of 1981), be quashed.
(3.) The case .of the petitioners is that due to some misunderstanding, the income-tax 'authorities raided the premises of petitioner No. 1 on February 20, 1979, and seized its account books and other documents relating to the year 1979. As the income-tax authorities did not release the account books and other documents seized by them, the company was prevented from preparing its profit and loss account as also its balance-sheet and getting the same audited within time. They contend that as the petitioners have acted honestly and reasonably and that, in the circumstances of the case, the default complained of by the. Registrar of Companies deserved to be excused and the court should relieve them of their liability in respect of non-filing of the company's balance-sheet and the profit and loss account within time. They also contend that in case the court relieves the petitioners of the above mentioned liability, the proceedings for their prosecution which are pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur, will also fall and will have to be quashed.;