Appeals by the appellant to the High Court at Bombay from the orders of the learned Magistrate were summarily dismissed.
The learned Magistrate did number go into the merits of the cases on the facts.
419 and 420 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated October 15, 1955, of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, in Cases Nos.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 9, 1956, of the former Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
It has preferred the present appeals from the decisions of the High Court at Bombay with special leave granted by this Court.
93 94/1958.
The appeals have been heard together and are both disposed of by this judgment.
P. Varma, for respondents Nos.
Respondent No.
He has been made a respondent to the present appeals clearly through some misapprehension.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeals Nos.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. S. Bindra and H. Dhebar, for the appellant in both the appeals .
7, N. K. Firodia, was discharged by the learned Magistrate because it was companyceded at the trial that he was number a director of the Company at any material time.
The appellant, the State of Bombay, does number and cannot proceed against him.
5, Fateh Chand Jhunjhunwala, died while this appeal was pending in this Court.
September 23.
5 to 7 In both the appeals .
370/S and 371/S of 1955.
The second offence was that they were knowingly and wilfully parties to the failure to lay before the Company in general meeting the balance sheet and profit and loss account as at March 31, 1953 and thereby became punishable under s. 133 3 of the Act for a default in companyplying with the requirements of s. 131.
N. Goyal, for respondent No.
4 In both the appeals .
The first offence was that they knowingly and wilfully authorised the failure to file the summary of share capital for the year 1953 and thereby became punishable under sub s. 5 of s. 32 of the Act, for a default in carrying out the requirements of that section.
P. Nathwani, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for respondents Nos.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J. The respondents were Directors of Hirjee Mills Ltd. They were prosecuted before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for two offences under the Companies Act, 1913, as amended by Act XXII of 1936.
1, 2 and 3 In both the appeals .
