Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The applicant had submitted that he is a young Company Secretary being prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 r/with Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 477A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for allegedly preparing some unsigned and unexecuted statutory records allegedly with Kumari Shriti, A-89 and that they purportedly executed this work on the instructions of Company Secretary V.K. Sharma A-86, and A-86 was then approached by Jitender Kumar Sharma, a Chartered Accountant A-79 for execution of this work and there drafts documents were allegedly recovered from the office premises of the Chartered Accountant Jitender Kumar Sharma on 26.1.2017. The applicant submitted that the SFIO had got the permission to conduct investigation in the matter on 8.1.2016 and that the documents allegedly prepared during the period February to March, 2016 were for the period 2008-2009 till the year 2014-15 The applicant submits that he has absolutely no role to play with the principal accused persons and that his role comes into play only after the commission of the alleged crime.

19. The applicant had submitted further that the offence punishable under Section 448 Companies Act 2013 is not made out against the Applicant since the Applicant has never made any false statement which has been filed by him or anybody else with any authority and submits that it is pertinent to note that the documents recovered from the office of Accused No. 79 are unsigned draft documents. The applicant submits that the documents had not been filed before any statutory authorities and the same were only draft documents prepared from the Statutory Records available and downloaded from the site of MCA. It is, inter alia, submitted by the applicant that he has never made any false statement with regard to any document. Inter alia the applicant submits that for invocation of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 it is imperative that a false document is prepared and that since the applicant has never filed any false statement Section 448 of the Companies Act is not applicable to him. It is submitted by the applicant that unsigned documents have no validity in law and the same cannot be relied upon.

were replaced with "offence covered under section 447".

26. It has thus been submitted by the applicant that the amended Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 along with the Statement of Objects and Reasons to Section 212(6) makes it amply clear that the rigour of the said Section would only be applicable if a person has been charged under Section 447 Companies Act, 2013,which is not the case in the present matter.

27. Inter alia, the applicant submitted that even if it is assumed that the rigours of Section 212(6) Companies Act apply even to Section 448 of the Companies Act, the test is satisfied as there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is guilty of the commission of the offence of section 448, as he has not made any false statement, the only allegation against him being that he made some draft documents on the basis of documents already filed with the MCA.

47. In as much as it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the documents have not been filed with any statutory authorities and the same were only draft documents prepared from the statutory records available and downloaded from the site of the MCA, the applicability of Section 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 becomes wholly doubtful in the absence of any signed document having been submitted by the petitioner.

48. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the assignment was received by the applicant in February-March, 2016 and that the applicant could thus not be liable for the statutory record which was filed in the year 2008-09 to 2014-15 available on the MCA website cannot be overlooked in as much as the role attributed against the applicant by the SFIO commenced only from February-March, 2016. None of the statements/returns alleged to be false have been signed and endorsed or filed by the applicant, coupled with the aspect of the act of the petitioner in stated preparation of statutory register and records by taking details and information for preparation of the record of companies from the MCA website when no original document had been submitted without such prepared records being submitted to any authority, the aspect of such records falling within the realm of an attempt to submit a false statement has to be considered taking into account the factum that A-86 Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma who is stated to have given the assignment to the petitioner, A-88 and his partner Shriti Kumari, A-89 are both on bail vide order dated 15.07.2019 of the learned trial Court.