- (1.) In this petition under Section-482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners have prayed to quash the complaint and the orders dated, November 28, 1991 and January 18, 1992 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Rajasthan, Jaipur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 492/89.
(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be proper to set out necessary facts of the case before dealing with them. The Registrar of Companies, Jaipur has filed a complaint against the petitioners, the Company M/s Kopyrite Ltd. and Shri M.R. Pathankar. At the out set it may be stated that the proceedings are in the initial stages as all the accused have not yet appeared in trial Court after service. The petitioners, too, are not appearing and bailable warrants have been issued several times to secure their attendance in Court. At one point of time the petitioners had appeared in Court through their counsel, but on 29.11.91 their counsel also did not appear and bailable warrants have been issued.
(3.) The complaint have been filed under Sec. 220 (3) of the Companies Act. The petitioners and the co-accused M.R. Pathanker were made accused as being Directors of the Company, on the charge that they committed default in complying with the requirements of sub-sections (i) and (ii) of Sec. 220 of the Act which required filing of copies of the Balance-Sheet and the Profit and Loss Account with the Registrar of Companies within a specified period. Sub-section (3) of Section-220 provides that every officer of the Company who is in default shall be liable to punishment as provided in Section 162 for a default in complying with the provision of Sections-159, 160 or 161 of the Companies Act. Section 162 provides penalty of fine which may extend to 50 rupees for every day during which the default continues. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on 25th October, 1989 and issued process against the accused. On 24th July, 1990 petitioners Dilip Kulkarni and Smt. Sheila M. Kulkarni appeared in Court through their counsel Shri Alankar Khanna and their personal attendance for the day was dispensed with on the application. On next date, i.e. 25.8.90, the Presiding Officer was on leave and petitioners personal attendance was again dispensed with for the day; but a direction was given to appear in person on the next date of hearing. Then, on 15.10.90 Shri Mahendra Singh, Advocate appeared for all the accused except Shri M.R. Pathanker and moved an application under Section-205 of the Code to dispense with their personal attendance. However, no order was passed on this application and the case was adjourned to procure attendence of the co-accused M.R. Pathankar. The case was, then, adjourned on several dates as co-accused M.R. Pathankar could not be served. On 29.11.91, neither petitioners nor their counsel appeared in Court and the concerned Magistrate at 4 p.m. passed order directing to issue bailable warrants against the petitioners. On next date the petitioners and their counsel again absented and warrants also returned unserved. Thereafter, Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocate again appeared and the application filed by him to withdraw order of bailable warrants and to allow the petitioners to appear through a Counsel was dismissed on the same day. Thereafther, neither the petitioners nor their counsel have appeared before the trial Magistrate and they have moved this petition under Section-482 Cr.P.C. on 25.10.93.;