NAGAMANI TRANSPORTS PRIVATE LTD Vs. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are six petitioners in these revision cases. The first petitioner, Nagamani Transports, is a private limited company, and petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 are its directors. The second petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. The fourth petitioner is their daughter and the sixth petitioner is the fourth petitioner's husband. The fifth petitioner is a third party. On the allegation that they failed to furnish to the Registrar of Companies copies of the annual return for the year ending September 30, 1962, and thereby contravened Section 159 read with Section 162 of the Companies Act, they were prosecuted before the Sixth Presidency Magistrate, Saidapet, Madras. On the further allegation that they failed to furnish to the Registrar of Companies copies of the balance-sheet for the year ending September 30, 1962, amounting to a contravention of Section 221 read with Section 223 of the Companies Act they were also prosecuted before the same magistrate. These criminal complaints were numbered as C. Cs. Nos. 900 and 899 of 1964 respectively. The accused pleaded that the company had become defunct but as there was no proof of that fact the learned Magistrate found them guilty and in each of the cases fined each of the accused Rs. 100. The accused have filed the present revision cases.

(2.) THE second petitioner died after the revision cases were filed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urged as a preliminary ground that the offences in question were committed in Tiruchi district where the head office of the , company is situate, and not in Madras City and therefore the Presidency Magistrate, Madras, had no jurisdiction to try the case. This contention is obviously untenable. Sections 159 and 221 of the Companies Act provide that the return or the balance-sheet as the case may be has to be filed before the Registrar of Companies who has his headquarters in Madras City. So the offence is committed not in Tiruchi where the company has got its head office, but, since the offence involves failure to file a particular return or a particular balance-sheet in the office of the Registrar at Madras City, the offence is one which is committed in Madras City.