Mandatory imprisonment under Companies Bill 2012

The Companies Bill 2012 has an innocuously titled chapter titled
“Miscellaneous” which provides stringent and perhaps unprecedented punishment.
The Chapter provides for imprisonment and fine for several
types of situations. A minimum imprisonment (six
months/three years) is also provided.
Clause 447, for example, says that any person found guilty of fraud
shall be punishable with imprisonment of at least six months but which may
extend to 10 years and fine. The fine shall be at least the amount involved but may
extend to 3 times such amount. If the fraud involves the public interest, the
minimum imprisonment would be 3 years.
The term fraud is widely and inclusively defined. It has to be in
relation to a company/body corporate, public or private, listed or unlisted. There
should be an intent to deceive, to gain undue advantage from or to injure the
interests of specified persons. There are no requirements of minimum amount,
materiality, etc. for such act/omission, etc. to be treated as fraud. The
affected person may be the Company, the shareholders, the creditors or
any other person
. The fraud may be committed by any person. The
person need not have gained any amount and the affected person need not have
lost any amount.
There are other provisions in the Bill that refer to this clause and
deem certain actions to be “fraud” punishable under clause 447. For example,
furnishing of false information or suppression of material information in
documents filed with the Registrar in relation to registration of a Company
amounts to fraud and punishable under clause 447. So is the making certain
untrue/misleading information in any prospectus.
Clause 448 refers to intentional making of materially false statement or
omitting material facts. These may be in documents such as report, certificate,
financial statement, prospectus, or other document required by or for the
purposes of the Act or rules. These too will be punishable as fraud under
Clause 447.
Clause 449 states that intentional giving of false evidence while being
examined on oath or in a solemn affirmation attracts minimum imprisonment of 3
years and which may extend to 7 years.
In view of specific provisions in clause 441, the offences listed above are
not
compoundable
.
While frauds, misstatements, etc. have been of serious concern recently,
one wonders whether such stringent, minimum and mandatory punishment for such a
broad group of cases is justified and whether it has been adequately debated. 

About the author

CA Jayant Thakur

2 comments

  • The following was Prof Bala's comment on this post, inadvertently placed on another post and my reply is given in the next comment.

    "Prof Bala said…
    Very interesting post. Glad to note the penal provisions in the Bill, as well as their mandatory nature highlighted. The more we get rid of discretionary power in as many walks of life as we can, the better it is for the dispensation of justice at various stages. Puzzled a bit about the concerns expressed on the severity of provisions. Reminds me of the human rights sympathies for the criminal killers for getting the rights of the victims. Just as an example, consider the alleged frauds in the recent Saradha case and similar others; let's spare a thought for the victims who lost their all, and those who killed themselves. If proved, I think even the most severe punishment will be inadequate for the perpetrators. It need not be Hamurabi's eye for an eye but some thing close enough is perhaps required to deter potential fraudsters.
    Prof Bala

    April 30, 2013 at 7:23 PM"

  • Thank you Prof Bala..

    A stringent law punishing fraudsters is obviously needed.

    The concerns, however, were two fold. There are no gradation to the fairly wide range of "frauds" and other acts that are covered by one single provision. A Rs. 500 padding of a travel voucher by an employee would be punishable with the same minimum imprisonment was a larger fraud. Within the minimum and maximum imprisonment, of course, the Court has discretion.

    The other concern is that these provisions, which were absent in preceding versions of the Bills over the years, do not seem to have been debated.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

Topics

Recent Comments

Archives

web analytics