MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J. - (1.) BOTH the criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment as also common facts and questions of law, hence the same are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) BOTH the criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant -Union of India, through Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs, against the judgment of acquittal dated August 14, 2002, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred in short 'learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 549 of 2000, whereby it acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Section 159/162 of the Companies Act, 1956. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, filed a complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence), Rajasthan, Jaipur, under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956, to the effect that according to Section 166 and its sub -sections the company was required to hold its annual general meeting and further to submit its annual return within 60 days of the holding of the meeting in terms of the provisions of Section 159 of the Companies Act and its sub -sections. However, the accused company failed to submit the return and even after expiry of limitation period up to the date of filing of the complaint that is August 19, 2000, the accused company failed to submit the annual return. 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 159 read with Section 162 of the Act and thus, made themselves liable for prosecution and punishment under the provisions of Section 159 read with Section 162 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 Section 614A and 611(2) of the Act. The 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.
(3.) ON the basis of this complaint the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused -respondents for the offence under Section 159/162 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.;