Delhi District CourtRoc vs . Surender Modi on 28 November, 2020DLCT020092692016\n\n\n\n\n                           Ct. Cases/536235/2016\n\n                           ROC VS. SURENDER MODI\n\n                                 JUDGMENT(a)      Sr. No. of the Case    536235/16\n(b)      Complainant            Registrar    of  Companies   through\n                                Rajneesh Kumar Singh, the then Asstt.\n                                Registrar of Companies.\n\n(c)                             Surender Modi R/o. 22 Sirifort Road,\n         Name, parentage and\n                                New Delhi.\n         residence/address of\n         accused.\n(d)      Offence complained     In contravention of Section 165 (3)\n         of                     which is punishable underSection 165\n                                (6)of Companies Act.\n(e)      Plea of accused        Pleaded Not guilty\n(f)      Final Order            Convicted\n(f)      Date of Institution    26.05.2016\n(h)      Date of reserving      28.11.2020\n         judgment\n(i)      Date of judgment       28.11.2020\n\n                        Brief facts and reasons for the decision:­\n\n\nFACTUAL MATRIX1. The present complaint is filedu/s 200Cr.P.C read withSection 165\n       (3) (6)of the Companies Act, 2013 by the Registrar of Companies of\nCIS No. 536235/16                  ROC VS. SURENDER MODI        PAGE NO. 1 of 5\n           NCT of Delhi and Haryana through Mr. Rajneesh Kumar Singh\n          Deputy Registrar of Companies. It is alleged in the complaint that\n          accused Surender Modi is registered vide Director's identification no.\n          XXXXX038. It is stated that as persection 165of the Companies Act,\n          2013 no person after the commencement of act shall hold the office\n          of Director including any alternate directorship in more than 20\n          companies at the same time. It is alleged that accused Sh.Surender\n          Modi despite lapse of one year from the date on which the companies\n          Act 2013 came into force as he was found violatingsection 165of the\n          Companies Act, 2013 as he was holding directorship in more than 20\n          companies.COURT PROCEEDINGS2. Accused was summoned by my Ld. Predecessor to face trial for the\n          offencesu/s 165 (6)Companies Act, 2013. Thereafter, noticeu/s 251Cr.P.C was framed for prima facie violation ofsection 165 (3)and165(6)of the Companies Act, 2013 vide order dated 26.04.2017. On\n          15.03.2019, the statement of the accusedu/s 313read withSection\n          281Cr.P.C was recorded.COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE3. Complainant examined CW­1 Ms. Shefali Gupta, Assistant Registrar\n          of Companies. She proved the complaint Ex. CW­1/5. She also\n          proved on record the DIN application number Ex. CW­1/1, list of\n          directorship obtained from MCA Portal Ex. CW­1/2, showcause notice\n          sent through email Ex. CW­1/3 and certificate u/s 65B of the Indian\n\n   CIS No. 536235/16                 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI          PAGE NO. 2 of 5Evidence ActEx. CW­1/4. On the other hand accused examined Sh.\n          Raj Kumar as DW­1 in defence evidence.DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED/FINAL ARGUMENTS.4. Arguments heard. Record perused. The Ex. CW­1/1 is the DIN\n          application details of the accused vide DIN No. XXXX038. Ex. CW­1/2\n          shows the details of the directorship of the accused in various\n          companies from time to time. The said documents is dated\n          16.05.2016 which shows that the accused was continuing director in\n          21 companies on 16.05.2016. Both the said documents are admissible\n          in evidence in view ofSection 397of the Companies Act, 2013\n          without any further proof or production of originals as evidence. The\n          status of directorship in aforesaid 21 companies is also not disputed\n          by the accused in the cross examination of CW­1. It is argued by Ld.\n          Defence Counsel that the show cause noticeu/s 165 (6)Companies\n          Act,    2013   was     served    by    the   ROC    office     on     email       I.D[email protected]and[email protected].             It    is\n          submitted that as per the DIN application details Ex. CW­1/1, the\n          email I.D as furnished in the director identification form is\n          compliance.services @ymail.com. It is stated that the form GNL­1 Ex.\n          CW­1/D1 is also placed on record which shows that the email I.D as[email protected]. It is argued that the show cause notice is\n          admittedly not issued by the department at the emails I.Ds which are\n          mentioned in the DIN form Ex. CW­1/1 and GNL­1 form. It is also\n          argued that CW­1 in her cross examination has admitted the\n          aforesaid position and also stated that she cannot say as to whether\n          the    show    cause   notice    was    sent   at   the      email     I.D        i.e\n\n   CIS No. 536235/16                      ROC VS. SURENDER MODI                PAGE NO. 3 of 5\n        compliance.services @ymail.com.5. DW­1 who is chartered account of accused, in his testimony has also\n       stated       that     email         I.D[email protected]and[email protected]does not belong to him. It is submitted that\n       as the show cause notice was not served on the accused, therefore the\n       prosecution is not maintainable. It is also stated that after the\n       institution of the case the accused has reduced his directorship within\n       the ceiling limit of 20 directors and there was no malafide intention\n       to violate the law.6. So far as the question of service of notice Ex. CW1/3 is concerned,\n       firstly, there is no statutory requirementu/s 165of the Companies\n       Act, 2013 to serve any show­cause notice. Apart from that the\n       accused       nowhere         has         disputed   that   the   email      I.D[email protected]and[email protected]do   not\n       belong to him. No suggestion disowning the said email IDs was given\n       in cross examination of complainant's witnesses. DW­1 Mr. Raj\n       Kumar who is the chartered accountant only stated that the aforesaid\n       email I.Ds do not belongs to him. Nowhere in his testimony DW1\n       stated that the aforesaid email I.Ds does not belong to accused. Apart\n       from that the said email I.Ds were available in the ROC record and\n       the admissibility of the electronic record is supported bysection 397of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the arguments regarding\n       the non­service of the show­cause notice does not go to the root of\n       the matter as there is no statutory requirement and even otherwise as\n       per the evidence the contentions are not proved.CIS No. 536235/16                          ROC VS. SURENDER MODI         PAGE NO. 4 of 57. It is settled principal of law that ignorance of the law is not an\n       excuse.The Companies Act, 2013came into force on 12.09.2013 and\n       the provisions ofSection 165Came in operation w.e.f. 01.04.2014.Section 165(3)of Companies Act, 2013 gave a compliance period of\n       one year to the Directors to choose not more than the specified limit\n       of companies where they want to continue to hold their office and\n       want to resign from the companies and also to intimate the choice to\n       concerned registrar having jurisdiction.Section 165(4)of Companies\n       Act further mandated that the said resignation shall become\n       immediately effective on dispatch thereof to the companies\n       concerned. The said legislative mandate was writ large and was\n       supposed to be complied by all the directors of the companies\n       without any necessity show­cause notice from the ROC office. But\n       unfortunately, the accused ignored the legislative mandate and\n       continued to be director in more than 20 companies even on\n       16.05.2016 and after the filing of this complaint on 26.05.2016 in\n       violation of the law. Accordingly, from the material on record, it is\n       clear that the accused has acted in contravention of provision ofsection 165of the Companies Act and violated the same and\n       accordingly, accused Surender Modi stands convicted undersection\n       165(6)of the Companies Act, 2013.Digitally signedby ABHILASHABHILASH MALHOTRA\nAnnounced in open\n                                          MALHOTRA Date:2020.12.02\nCourt on 28.11.2020                        (ABHILASH MALHOTRA) 11:35:15 +0530\n                                        ACMM (Spl. Acts):Central District:Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\n\n\n\n\nCIS No. 536235/16                 ROC VS. SURENDER MODI         PAGE NO. 5 of 5