Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sec 628 in Mohanraj M Singhi vs State Of Gujarat & on 16 August, 2016Matching Fragments
5.2 Books of accounts for the year 1996- 1997, 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 did not present true and financial position and as such the accused being 2 to 13 are responsible and liable to be punishable under Section 209 read with Section 211 read with Section 628 of the Act.
5.3 The accused persons being 2 to 13 have knowingly and willfully approved the false annual accounts and thereby the accused persons have rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted under Section 209(5) read with Section 211 read with Section 628 of the Companies Act 1956.
5.10 There is no specific allegation made in the complaint, holding the Petitioner liable for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 628 of the Companies Act. Further, there is no averment in the complaint alleging mala fides or want of good faith on the part of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be said to be liable for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 628 of the Companies Act. In this regard, the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of In re G. Natesan and others, reported in AIR 1949 Mad 657.
Submissions of the Petitioner 5.27 The submissions in paragraph Nos.5.4, 5.12 by the petitioner with reference to Criminal Case No.14 of 2006 i.e. in Special Criminal Application No.3139 of 2012 are common and therefore, they are not reproduced separately.
5.28 There is no specific allegation made in the complaint, holding the Petitioner liable for HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Wed Aug 17 02:51:16 IST 2016 the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 628 of the Companies Act. Further, there is no averment in the complaint alleging mala fides or want of good faith on the part of the Petitioner. In the circumstances, the Petitioner cannot be said to be liable for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 628 of the Companies Act. In this regard, the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of In re G. Natesan and others, reported in AIR 1949 Mad 657.
5.29 There is no allegation whatsoever that the Petitioner has made any false statement in material particular knowing it to be false in any return, report, certificate, balance sheet, prospectus, statement or other document by or for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Act or has omitted any material fact knowing it to be material.
5.30 It is submitted that Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 would have no application in the context of Section 217(3) of the Companies Act, 1956.