Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

The question, referred for our opinion, is whether the onus lies on the Official Liquidator to prove that the person, against whom prosecution is launched under Section 454(5A) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, the Act), had no reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement of Section 454 of the Act, for him to be prosecuted and punished under Section 454(5) of the Act (or) whether it would suffice if the prosecution is able to show that there has been a default on the part of the accused, in complying with the requirement of Section 454, to attract the penal consequences under Section 454(5) of the Act, and it is then for the accused to show reasonable excuse, for such default, for him to be exonerated of the offence.

2. While the former view weighed with a Division Bench of this Court in Indla Satya Raju v. Sramika Agro Farm (P) Ltd. (In liquidation), (2002) 4 ALD 637, and a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Official Liquidator of Security and Finance P. Ltd. v. B.K. Bedi, (1974) 1 ILR(Del) 809, a Learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice T. Ch. Surya Rao) was of the considered view that, on a plain reading of Section 454(5) of