R.K.Mazumder, J. - (1.) The instant Criminal revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is at the instance of the accused-petitioner Smt. Shashi Sood and this has been filed with a prayer for quashing the instant Criminal Proceeding arising out of the Case No. C-151 of 1988 under section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, now pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
(2.) The case of the accused-petitioner was in brief that O.P. No. 1 being the Assistant Registrar of Companies, West Bengal filed a petition of complaint on 18.1.88 against the petitioner and three others in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas alleging inter alia that the petitioner and others contravent the provisions of section 220(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 by way of not filing three copies of Balance-Sheet and Profit & Loss Account in the prescribed form duly filled in with the complainant as contemplated in the Act. To be specific, although under the law the petitioner as one of the Directors of the Company and others were required to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Company on or before 30.6.87 and that although the Balance-Sheet and Profit & Loss Account of the Company for the year ended on 31.12.86 ought to have been filed in the office of O.P. No. 1 on or before 30.7.87 the same was not done by the petitioner and others. The further allegation against the petitioner was that although show-cause notice was issued by O.P. No. 1 urging upon the petitioner to do the same, the petitioner and others defaulted in complying with the same and were thus knowingly guilty for such default, non-compliance and failure and hence they were liable for punishment under section 220(3) of Companies Act, 1956. According to the petitioner the instant Criminal Proceeding was not maintainable at all inasmuch as the petitoner was merely a house-wife and had nothing to do with the management and other affairs of the Company. According to her, the ingredients of the alleged offence against her were totally absent in the petition of complaint filed by O.P. No. 1. Besides, according to her in the absence of averments in the petition of complaint against her, no liability could be fixed against her merely because she had been described as a Director of the accused Company. She was again not a 'Principal Officer' of the Company nor she came within the expression 'officer in default'. But unfortunately the learned Court below failed to appreciate her case and took cognizance of the alleged offence and issued process against her without due application of mind. Hence the prayer for quashing the instant criminal proceeding against her.
(3.) I have had the opportunity of hearing learned counsels for both the parties at length in the matter.;