The Deputy Registrar Of Companies vs M/S. Igate Global Solutions Ltd on 9 May, 2018
25. The learned counsel of the accused argued that
even if, it is held that the accused No.1 committed the
offence, the other accused persons cannot be held liable.
P.w.1 in the cross examination, admitted that the accused
No.3 was appointed on 11.04.2006 and from this, it is
clear that he was not the officer in default at the relevant
point of time. Thus, he cannot be held liable for the act of
29 CC.No.421/2010
accused No.1 company earlier to the date of his
appointment. Learned counsel of the accused relied upon
the ruling rendered by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court,
in the case of Srikumar Menon Vs. Registrar of
Companies, West Bengal, reported in 2011 SCC Online
Cal.1144 and in the case of Bithal D. Mundhra and
others Vs. The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal,
reported in 2011 SCC Online Cal.3554, wherein by
referring to Sec.630 of the Companies Act, it is held that
"the discretion provided in the Sec.630 to relieve the
accused is also vested with the criminal court to relieve
the offender, when no cause of action against him is
disclosed. It is also confers the powers on High Court to
exonerate the accused if it appeared to it that he may be
liable but had acted "honestly and reasonably".