Delhi District Court
Roc vs . M/S Amtek Metal And Mining Ltd And Ors. on 11 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS:
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts):
CENTRAL:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 1085/17
ROC Vs. M/s Amtek Metal and Mining ltd and Ors.
JUDGMENT
(a)Name of complainant : Registrar of Companies
through Dr. Afsar Ali
Assistant Registrar of
Companies.
(b)Name of the accused : 1. M/s Amtek Metal and
Mining Ltd.
4 Bhanot Apartments,
Local Shopping Centre,
Pushp Vihar,
New Delhi110062.
2. Sh. Daljit Singh Chahal,
S/o Gurdial Singh Chahal,
Director,
H.No. 302, Raj Guru Nagar,
Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana,
Punjab141012
3. Sh. Badri Nath Kar
S/o Jiya Lal Kar,
Director,
102, Ashok ViharIII,
Gurgaon, 122001,
Haryana
4. Sh.Amman Kumar
S/o Virender Kumar,
Additional Director,
Road19, House No. 1
Punjabi Bagh Extension,
New Delhi110026
ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 1 of 18
(c)Offences complained of : U/s 92,99 and 137(3)
for contravention of
Section 92, 96 and 137
of the Companies Act, 2013.
(d)Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(e)Final order : Convicted
(f)Date of such order :
Date of institution : 27.01.2017
Date of Judgment : 11.02.2020
Brief facts and the reasons for the decision:
1. The complainant Dr. Afsar Ali, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana filed the present complaint against the accused person as well as company for the offences punishable u/s 92,99 and 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 (in short 'Act') for nonfiling of the balance sheet and profit and loss account within 30 days of Annual General Meeting and failure to conduct AGM for the financial year ending on 31.03.2015.
2. The facts of the case are that accused no. 1 is a registered company registered with the office of the Registrar of Companies (for short "ROC") and accused no. 2 to 4 were the Directors/Officers of the accused no. 1 company, responsible for the compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is stated in the complaint that Directors were required to place Balance Sheet and profit and loss account in the Annual General Meeting and also conduct AGM and file Annual Return in the prescribed form within 60 days of the date of the Annual General Meeting. The accused no. 1/company through accused no. 2 to 4 as its Directors had ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 2 of 18 not filed the balance sheet, profit & loss account and annual return and also could not hold Annual General Meeting for the financial year ended on 31.03.2015. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.
3. Upon service of summons, accused no.2 to 4 and Sh. Deepak Gosian AR of the accused no.1 company have appeared. Copy of complaint and documents were supplied to accused. It is a matter of record that notice was served upon the AR of accused no. 1 company and accused no.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under section 92, 99 and 137(3) of the Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its allegations, the complainant examined Dr. Afsar Alil, AROC as CW1.
5. In his evidence, CW1 Dr. Afsar Ali reiterated the facts of the case and deposed the same facts as alleged in the complaint. In support of the his testimony, he has placed reliance upon documents i.e certified copy of company master data as Ex. CW1/1, certified copy of register of Directors maintained with MCA Portal as Ex. CW1/2, certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. CW1/3, show cause notice which is Ex CW 1/4 and complaint Ex CW 1/5. CW1 has specifically deposed that the accused no. 1/company has not filed balance sheet and profit & loss account and annual return and has failed to conduct Annual General Meeting for the financial year ending 31.03.2015 despite issuance of show cause notice which is Ex. CW1/4 and thus accused no. 2 to 4 are guilty of the contravention of Section 92, 96 and 137 of the Act punishable 92, 99 and 137(3) of the said Act. He also placed reliance upon his complaint as Ex. CW1/5. During cross examination, he stated that the present complaint has been filed by him and he was duly ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 3 of 18 authorized by virtue of the Companies Act being the Assistant Registrar of the Companies. He further stated that he did not possess any separate authority in this regard and got the information regarding the defaults of the company one month prior to sending of the notice for default U/s 137/92/99 of the Companies Act. He further stated that no separate notices were issued to the directors of the companies and notice was issued by Sh. Prahlad Meena, Dy. ROC and the same were bulk notices and no individual notice was sent to the companies. He voluntarily stated that as per section 20 of the Companies Act, notice being served to the company also meant service for all the officers of the company who are in default. He further stated that in the present case notices were issued to the registered email of the company and not at the registered address of the company by post or courier. He denied the suggestion that the notice dated 04.10.16 Ex. CW1/4 was bounced back and could not be received by the company. He further deposed that they had not sent any reminder mail to the company and the present prosecution was for default of financial year ending 31.03.15 only. He denied the suggestion that they involved all the directors, shown in MCA master Data without verifying the functioning of the directors and the responsibility of the directors of the company. He denied the suggestion that all directors were made accused in order to maximize the fine imposed upon the accused. He further stated that he cannot say if the notice sent to the accused company was served or not. Thereafter, complainant evidence was closed.
6. The statement of accused persons U/s 313 r.w Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded, separately wherein accused persons denied the correctness of the allegations and the material brought by the complainant. The accused persons further stated that the company has ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 4 of 18 already filed the requisite documents in the ROC. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for DE and accused no.2 to 4 as well as Sh. Deepak Singh Gusain AR of the accused no.1 company, examined themselves after allowing of application u/s 315 Cr.P.C.
7. DW1 Sh. Deepak Singh Gusain deposed that he was the AR of the accused no.1 company. He further relied on the copy of form AOC4 Ex. DW1/1 (Colly) filed on behalf of the accused no. 1 with the ROC for the financial year ending on 31.03.2015, 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2017. He also relied on the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex. DW1/3 in support of the above documents.
During cross examination, the witness deposed he does not recall whether the board resolution authorizing him as AR is available on record or not, that he does not remember the date of passing of board resolution, that he does not read the contents of the board resolution and that he does not understand the contents of the board resolution. He further deposed that the documents Form AOC4 Ex. DW1/1 and MGT 7 Ex. DW1/2 were not taken by him and he does not know who has taken the print out of these documents and admitted that he has filed certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act qua the said documents. DW1 further admitted that the documents in Form AOC4 Ex. DW1/1, MGT7 Ex. DW1/2 and certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act were also filed only after the due date and after launching of the prosecution.
8. Similarly, DW2 Sh. Daljit Singh Chahal deposed that he was one of the director of the accused no.1 company. He further stated that he had not received any notice from the complainant. He further stated that since the company was not having any business, the employees who ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 5 of 18 were looking after the accounts department and the filings with ROC and other government bodies left the company which resulted into the stated non filings. He further stated that he was not looking after the day to day affairs of the company and same were looked after by Sh. P.S. Bawa, Company Secretary of the company. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had received a notice from the department. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons had deliberately not filed the annual return. He denied the suggestion that he was looking after the day to day affairs of the company. He further denied that he was one of the directors to make all the compliances of the companies act and to ensure all the necessary filings as required under companies act. He admitted that the company had not filed balance sheet profit and loss account and annual return within the stipulated period of time. He further denied that the AGM was not conducted on time. He admitted that he was still continuing as director on the Board of Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd.
9. Similarly, DW3 Sh. Badrinath Kar deposed that he was one of the director of the accused no.1 company. He further stated that he had not received any notice from the complainant and since the company was not having any business, the employees who were looking after the accounts department and the filings with ROC and other government bodies left the company which resulted into the stated non filings. He further stated that he was not looking after the day to day affairs of the company. During cross examination, he admitted that he was appointed as Director in the company namely Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd. He further stated that being Director it was his statutory duty to make all compliances of Companies Act and to ensure all the necessary filings as required under Companies Act. He further admitted that the company ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 6 of 18 has not filed balance sheet, profit & loss account and annual return within stipulated time. He denied the suggestion that the AGM was not conducted on time. He admitted that he was still continuing as Director on the board of Amtek Metal & Mining Ltd.
10. Similarly, DW4 Amman Kumar deposed that he was one of the directors of accused no.1. He further stated that he had not received any notice from the complainant and since the company was not having any business, the employees who were looking after the accounts department and the filings with ROC and other government bodies left the company which resulted into the stated non filings. He further stated that he was not looking after the day to day affairs of the company and same were looked after by Sh. P.S. Bawa, Company Secretary of the company. During cross examination, he admitted that he was appointed as Director Amtek Metal and Mining Limited. He admitted that he was continuing as director in the above said company and on that day also he was director in the same. He further stated that being director it was his responsibility to file balancesheet and P/L account and annual return with the ROC as per provision of Companies Act. He voluntarily stated that as the auditors were changed and the finance team which was handling the issues had left the company, the filing was not done on time. He further admitted that at the time when he was appointed as Director he was duty bound as per Companies Act to ensure the compliances under Companies Act. He voluntarily stated that he was not the active director. He further stated that he was not aware that whether there was any concept under Companies Act regarding active or non active director. He further admitted that the filing of annual return, P/L account and balancesheet was not done on time as stipulated in Companies Act and annual general meeting had not done within the ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 7 of 18 time as specified in the Companies Act. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
11. This court has given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and gone through the relevant records as well as the relevant provisions of law.
12. The relevant provisions of section 92/99/137(3) of the Act are reproduced for ready reference: Section 92:If a company fails to file its annual return under subsection (4), before the expiry of the period specified under section 403 with additional fees, the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakhs rupees and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.
Section 99: " if any default is made in holding a meeting of the company in accordance with section 96 or section 97 or section 98 or in complying with any directions of the Tribunal, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the case of a continuing default, with a further fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such default continues."
Section 137(3):" If a company fails to file the copy of the financial statements under sub section (1) or subsection ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 8 of 18 (2), as the case may be, before the expiry of the period specified in section 403, the company shall be punishable with fine of one thousand rupees for every day during which the failure continues but which shall not be more than ten lakh rupees, and the managing director and the Chief Financial Officer of the company, if any, and, in the absence of managing director and the Chief Financial Officer, any other director who is charged by the Board with the responsibility of complying with the provisions of this section, and, in the absence of any such director, all the directors of the company, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both."
13. Complainant has to prove that accused no.1 is a company and accused no.2 to 4 are / were Director and responsible for the conduct of day to day affair of the company i.e M/s Amtek Metal & Mining Ltd. Complainant has to further prove that accused persons failed to comply with the provision of Sections 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act.
14. Ld. Company prosecutor submits that in view of the testimony of CW1 and the documentary evidence placed on record as well as the admissions made by the accused persons in their testimonies, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused no. 2 to 4 are officials in default for non compliance of provisions of Section 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act. She further argued that no sanction or show cause notice is required for filing of complaint U/s ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 9 of 18 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act of the Act. Still, the show cause notice Ex. CW1/4 was issued in the interest of justice to accord an opportunity to accused persons to explain their stand but in the instant case neither the reply to the said notice was given nor default was made good and thus it can be safely said that the accused persons deliberately contravened the alleged provisions of the Companies Act.
15. On the other hand, the defence version is that accused no. 1/company is inactive since its incorporation and no business was carried out, thus the employees were looking after the account department as well as filing with the ROC and other Government bodies which resulted into the alleged nonfiling. Record further shows that the accused persons have also taken the stand that no liability is made out against them as show cause notice was never served upon them and the present complaint is not maintainable being barred by limitation as the offence is punishable with imprisonment upto six months and thus the limitation for filing of complaint is one year from the date of offence and prayed for dismissal of the complaint which was filed on 13.01.2017 for the default committed in the year 2015.
16. In rebuttal, Ld. Company prosecutor submits that there is no provision which mandates issuance of show cause notice prior to launching prosecution and thus non issuance / nonservice of show cause notice will not affect the merits of the case. Ld. Company Prosecutor further submits that non filing of balance sheet, profit & loss account, annual return and failing to hold AGM within the stipulated period, is a continuing offence and the same has not been filed till filing of the instant complaint. So, the instant complaint is still within ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 10 of 18 limitation.
17. Whether CW1 Dr. Afsar Ali AROC is competent to depose in the present case: It is argued on behalf of the accused that CW1 is an incompetent witness as he has not filed the complaint and is not aware about the documents filed with the complaint. As per Section 2(75) of Companies Act 2013, an Assistant Registrar or Deputy Registrar is included in the definition of Registrar to function on or behalf of Registrar of Companies. The complaint was filed by a public servant in his official capacity. Witness CW1 is posted as Assistant Registrar of Companies and derives his knowledge on the basis of official record. Furthermore, neither any objection was raised by the accused at the time of recording of evidence by the complainant nor any evidence has been led by the accused challenging the competence of CW1 which is material omission. In the cross examination, instead of challenging the competence of CW1 the accused persons got it affirmed that CW1 is duly authorized by virtue of the Companies Act being the Assistant Registrar of the Companies. Keeping in view of the aforesaid observations and omission, there is no force in the arguments that complaint should be dismissed as CW1 is incompetent witness.
18. Whether the complainant has proved the documents filed with the complaint: Ld. Company Prosecutor had argued that in terms of Section 397 and 399 of Companies Act 2013, the documents have been duly proved. Section 397 of Companies Act 2013 provides that any document reproduced or derived from returns and documents filed by a company with the Registrar on paper or in electronic form or stored on any electronic data or storage device or computer readable media by the Registrar, and authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 11 of 18 empowered by the Central Government in such manner as may be prescribed, shall be deemed to be a document for the purposes of this Act and the rules made thereunder and shall be admissible in any proceedings thereunder without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence is admissible and shall in all legal proceedings be admissible in evidence as of equal validity with the original document.
19. The complainant has filed certified copy of master data of company Ex. CW1/1. This document bears stamp of the ROC alongwith signatures of Dy./AROC. This document satisfies the requirement of admissibility of document as evidence U/s 397 of the Act. The copy of register of director maintained with MCA Portal Ex.CW1/2, certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. CW1/3 & the show cause notice Ex.CW1/4 bear stamp of certification of the Registrar of Companies as provided under the Act. There is due compliance of section 397 of the Act to prove the evidence of documents kept by Registrar. Perusal of record shows that neither any objection was raised by the accused at time of exhibition of aforesaid documents nor any evidence has been led by the accused challenging genuineness and authenticity of the signatures of the Registrar/Dy. Registrar of the company as well as the stamp of certification which is material omission. Hence, the court is satisfied that complainant has proved the documents as admissible evidence for the present prosecution.
20. Whether the accused no.1 is a company and accused no.2 to 4 were Directors and being such officers, they defaulted in compliance of provision of Section 92,99 & 137(3) of the Companies Act: CW1 ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 12 of 18 stated in evidence that accused no. 1 was registered with ROC and accused no. 2 to 4 are/were the officers/directors of the accused no. 1 and are/were responsible for compliance of the various provisions of Companies Act 1956. He further stated that accused no.1. company and its directors had not filed profit & loss account, balance sheet, and annual return and have failed to conduct annual general meeting for the F.Ys 20142015 which were required to be filed as per sections 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act. He proved copy of Master Data of the company as Ex. CW1/1 & register of Directors maintained with MCA Portal Ex. CW1/2. He further exhibited the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. CW1/3, show cause notice as Ex. CW1/4 and the complaint filed before this Court as Ex. CW1/5.
During cross examination the witness deposed that the present complaint has been filed by him and he is duly authorized by virtue of the Companies Act being the Assistant Registrar of the Companies, that he does not possess any separate authority in this regard, that they got the information regarding the defaults of the company one month prior to sending of the notice for default u/s 137/92/99 of the Companies Act, that they sent notices in bulk to the defaulting companies and apart from that they issue notices individually to the defaulting companies, that no separate notices were issued to the Directors of the companies, that in this case, notice was issued by Sh. Prahlad Meena, Deputy ROC and the same were bulk notices and no individual notice was sent to the companies and volunteered that as per section 20 of the Companies Act notice being served to the company also means service for all the officers of company who are in default. The witness denied the suggestion that they involved all the directors deliberately, shown in MCA master Data without verifying the functioning of the directors and the responsibility ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 13 of 18 of the directors of the company and that all the directors were made accused in order to maximize the fine imposed upon them.
21. Perusal of the aforesaid testimony reveals that the factum of the accused persons being the officer / directors responsible for the business of the accused company as well as the factum of commission of the alleged default on behalf of the company is not disputed as no specific suggestion to that effect was put to CW1 during the entire cross examination which amounts to admission of his testimony in this regard as made in his examination in chief.
22. Record further shows that the accused persons did not mention anything specifically about the fact that they were not responsible for business of the accused company and how as well as that the alleged compliances were made within the statutory period even at the time of recording of statement of accused which being a material omission substantiates that the version of the complainant is true. At the time of leading defence evidence, DW1 who is the AR of the accused no.1 company stated in his cross examination that he does not recall whether the board resolution authorizing him as AR is available on record or not, that he does not remember the date of passing of board resolution, that he does not read the contents of the board resolution and that he does not understand the contents of the board resolution. These testimonies of DW1 indicate that a grave doubt exists upon the very factum of him being appointed as authorized representative of the company which further shows that his testimony and the documents brought by him are not reliable. He further deposed that the documents Form AOC4 Ex. DW1/1 and MGT7 Ex. DW1/2 were not taken by him and he does not know who has taken the print out of these documents and admitted that ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 14 of 18 he has filed certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act qua the said documents. This testimony shows that authenticity of the aforesaid documents is highly doubtful and the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act filed by him can also not be relied as the documents were not taken by him. DW1 further admitted that the documents in Form AOC4 Ex. DW1/1 and MGT7 Ex. DW1/2 were also filed only after the due date and after launching of the prosecution.
23. Perusal of the cross examination of DW2 to DW4 shows that they admitted that they were one of the directors responsible to make all compliances of the Companies Act and to ensure all necessary filings as required under Companies Act, that the company has not filed balance sheet, profit and loss account and annual return within the stipulated time and that they are still continuing as Director in the Board of M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd. DW4 further admitted that annual general meeting was not done at the time as specified in the Companies Act. It is further evident that the accused persons did not prove any relevant and admissible document as per law to show that AGM was ever conducted.
24. It is evident from the aforesaid testimony of CW1 and admission made by accused persons at the time of defence evidence that balance sheet and profit & loss account and annual return was not filed for the financial year 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2015 till the date of filing of the instant complaint and AGM was not held for the said year. It is also clear from perusal of the act that it nowhere provides that any showcause notice is required for initiating prosecution for contravention u/s 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act.
ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 15 of 18
25. It is also a settled proposition of law that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. So, offence for contravention of section 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act are continuing in nature as the default was not made good till the time of filing of the complaint and it is punishable for each day during which the default continues. (Ref: State of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi:
AIR 1973 SC 908) Hence, the present complaint is within limitation. Furthermore, financial constraint or being dormant or being unaware of the provision of the Act is not a ground for seeking exemption from compliance of statutory provisions of the Companies Act and moreover, neither any suggestion was put to CW1 on behalf of accused persons to the effect that they were restrained from complying with the alleged provisions of companies Act for reasons beyond their control which were conveyed to the ROC nor any independent evidence has been led to show the existence of such extraordinary reasons which is a material omission indicating that the accused persons deliberately defaulted in complying with said provisions & that their conduct lacked bonafides.
26. It is further evident from the record that DW2 stated that the day to day affairs of the company were looked after by Sh. B.S.Bawa Company Secretary but the said fact was neither suggested to CW1 during his evidence nor was stated even at the time of recording of statement of accused and not positive and admissible evidence was led on behalf of accused persons for proving the existence of any Company Secretary. It shows that the said version of looking after of work by the Company Secretary is not believable. It is further evident from the testimony of DW4 that he deposed that he was not an active director. He, however, admitted that at the time he was appointed director, he ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 16 of 18 was duty bound as per Companies Act to ensure the compliances. So, the version of being not an active director can not come to the rescue of the accused persons. Moreover, the concept of active / passive director is not applicable to the present factual matrix as the act does not provide such a distinction.
27. It shows that there is no material available on record to show that accused no.2 to 4 were not director and responsible for day to day affairs of the accused no. 1 company at the relevant time and that there was any reasonable cause for not complying with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. So, the defence arguments that accused no. 2 to 4 were not responsible for the day to day affairs of accused no.1 company and that auditors were changed and the finance team which was handling the issues had left the company, so the filing was not done on time, are not tenable.
28. It thus emerges from the aforestated facts, analysis of testimonies and observations that the complainant has proved beyond the reasonable doubts that accused no.1 is a company and the accused no. 2 to 4 were the Directors/Officers of the accused no. 1 company, responsible for the compliance of the provisions of the Act, that being Directors were required to place Balance Sheet and profit and loss account in the Annual General Meeting and also conduct AGM and file Annual Return in the prescribed form within stipulated period of the date of the Annual General Meeting and that the accused persons knowingly and willfully failed to comply with the said provisions. So, it is held that accused have failed to comply with the provision of Sections 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act.
ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 17 of 18
29. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. Accordingly, accused no. 1 company M/s Amtek Metal & Mining Ltd, accused no.2 Sh. Deepak Singh Gusain, accused no.2 Daljeet Singh, accused no.3 Badri Nath Kar and accused no.4 Amman Kumar are held guilty and convicted for contravention of section 92,99 & 137 (3) punishable U/s 92,96 & 137 of the Companies Act.
30. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open
Court on 11.02.2020 (VIPLAV DABAS)
ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
ROC Vs M/s Amtek Metal and Mining Ltd &Ors. CC No. 1085/17 Page No. 18 of 18