Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant -Union of India, through Registrar of Companies. Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, against the judgment of acquittal dated 9 -8 -2002 passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur City. (Hereinafter to be referred in short 'the learned trial Court') Jaipur in case No. 137/2002, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Assistant Registrar, Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur filed a complaint in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Rajasthan, Jaipur under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 to the effect that according to Section 210 and its sub -sections the Company was required to place the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the financial year 1999 -2000 in its annual general meeting to be held on 31 -12 -2000 and further to submit the balance -sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days of the holding of the meeting in terms of provisions of Section 220(1) of the Companies Act. However, the accused Company failed to submit the balance -sheet and profit and loss account and even after the expiry of long period up to the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 12 -2 -2002, the accused Company failed to submit the balance -sheet and profit and loss account in accordance with law before the Registrar of Companies. Although default notices were issued and served upon the accused persons but still they failed to submit the return and thus, committed default in terms of the provisions of Section 220(3) of the Act and thus, made themselves liable for prosecution and punishment under the provisions of Section 220(3) of the Act. It was also averred that pending decision upon the complaint, the accused persons be directed to submit annual return in accordance with the provisions of Sections 614A and 611(2) of the Act. Cost of the proceedings were also demanded along with the request that the offence made out against the accused persons be treated as an offence continuous in nature. On the basis of this complaint the learned trial Court took cognizance against the accused respondents for the offence under Section 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. Thereafter, the substance of the offence was read over to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter.
(3.) FROM the side of complainant statement of P.W.1 Shiv Prakash Rawat was recorded.;