Pragya Education Ltd. failed to hold annual general meeting within the due date and they failed to place audited financials at the meeting for shareholder's approval. Since financials were not approved at AGM, Directors
CS Professional · Resolution of Corporate Disputes, Non-Compliances & Remedies · PYQS · June 2025
Pragya Education Ltd. failed to hold annual general meeting within the due date and they failed to place audited financials at the meeting for shareholder's approval. Since financials were not approved at AGM, Directors of the company further failed to file financials and annual returns with Registrar of Companies. Company being a listed company was holding public funds is liable to account for those funds to the shareholders. Series of above defaults attracted offences committed by company and its directors. Directors of the company pleaded that since these offences are connected to one series of acts, they may be charged with and tried at one trial, for every office. Is the plea valid? Evaluate in the context of a judicial pronouncement.
Answer & Explanation:
According to Section 243 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. This could be used when different offences committed by a single person or same persons and the trial could be a combined and held as a single trial. Case Law under erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 The Calcutta High Court in Madan Gopal Dey and Anor. V. State and Anor. held that if several offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, CrPC would authorize their joinder for the purpose of a single trial. The term 'same transaction' suggests a continuity of action and purpose and it has been held that the real and substantive test for determining whether several offences are so connected together as to form one transaction depends upon whether they are related together in point of purpose or as cause and effect or as principal and subsidiary acts so as to constitute one continuous action. If a continuous tread runs through the acts complained of, charges arising out of those acts would be liable to be joined together. Continuity of action, therefore, seems to be a very important test in the matter. In the given case, substance of the charges framed against the petitioners is that they had failed to hold the AGM and that they had failed to place the balance sheet and profit and loss account at the meeting and they had further failed to file with the Registrar the annual return and copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account within the specified period following AGM. Applying above provision, Directors as well as Company are thus liable to be jointly tried. Hence, plea of the Director is valid.
Topics: Criminal Law / Company Law
Related Questions in this Topic
- Differentiate between Punishment for False Statement and Punishment for False Evidence under the Companies Act, 2013.
- Mr. P who was a Managing Director of XYZ Ltd, was terminated from the position of Managing Director by virtue of an orde...
- Amit Sinha, commonly known as Sethji, has been accused of certain offenses under the SEBI Act, 1992. SEBI directed him t...
- State the punishment prescribed under Companies Act, 2013 for the following: (iv) Improper use of words "Limited" or "Pr...
- State the punishment prescribed under Companies Act, 2013 for the following: (iii) Punishment for wrongful withholding o...