In cases of default in complying with the requirements of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court may take a lenient view of the sentence if there are extenuating circumstances.

BARMAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a complaint filed by the official liquidator against Shri Jagannath DAS ex-director-in-charge of the China Clay Refinery Company (Private) Limited (in liquidation) (hereinafter referred to as the company) to take cognizance of the offence under Sub-sections (5) and (5a) of Section 454 of the Companies Act, 1956 and impose necessary punishment on the said accused ex-director-in-charge as required under the law, in the circumstances hereinafter stated.

( 2 ) ON January 21, 1966, there was an order for winding up of the company under the provisions of the Act and the official liquidator was directed to take charge of properties and effects of the said company as liquidator.

( 3 ) UNDER Section 454 (3) of the Act, the accused ex-director-in-charge of the company was to submit a statement of affairs of the company in the prescribed form verified by an affidavit within twenty-one days from the relevant date, namely, the date of winding up order or within such extended time not exceeding three months from the date as the official liquidator or the court may, for special reasons appoint.

( 4 ) ON February 11, 1966, the statutory period of twenty-two days as provided under Section 454 (3) of the Act expired.

( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the official liquidator gave notice dated March 21, 1966, to the said accused ex-director-in-charge to submit a statement of affairs of the company within April 21, 1966 (exhibit 1 ). The said notice was received by the accused ex-director-in-charge on March 23, 1966, as will appear from the acknowledgment of postal notice (exhibit 1-A ).

( 6 ) IT was not until April 19, 1966, that the accused ex-director-in-charge wrote a letter (exhibit 2) to the official liquidator that the vigilance police had taken away the balance-sheet, minutes register, audit reports, share certificates and money receipts on January 9, 1966 ; that the details as required in the notice could not be furnished nor would he be able to collect those papers and documents by April 21, 1966, as required under the notice. The accused ex-director-in-charge further prayed that the forms and instructions for preparation of the statements might be made available to him so that he could enable himself to submit the statement of affairs of the company as stated in the said letter.

( 7 ) ON April 25, 1966, the official liquidator, by registered parcel, sent the necessary forms, etc. , to the accused ex-director-in-charge as requested by him with instructions to file the statement of affairs as soon as possible.

( 8 ) ON May 25, 1966, the official liquidator issued a reminder to the accused ex-director-in-charge but in spite of the reminder the accused ex-director-in-charge had not filed the statement of affairs as required under the law.

( 9 ) ON June 8, 1966, the accused ex-director-in-charge intimated to the official liquidator that the information called for was under compilation and that it would be supplied soon.

( 10 ) ON June 27, 1966, a complaint was filed by the official liquidator against the accused ex-director-in-charge on the ground that the accused ex-director-incharge, without reasonable excuse, made default in complying with the requirements of Section 454 of the Act,

( 11 ) ON September 10, 1966, the complaint case came up for hearing before this court. The substance of the accusations was explained to the accused ex-directorin-charge. He stated that he had defaulted in filing the statement of affairs of the company as required under Section 454 of the Act and that he would show cause as to why he did not do so. The case was ultimately fixed for hearing and the taking of evidence in the case on the date as hereinafter stated.

( 12 ) ON January 5, 1967, the trial of the com plaint case filed by the official liquidator commenced. The head assistant of the office of the official liquidator was examined as P. W. 1 on behalf of the complainant and documents relied on on behalf of the complainant were marked