Court held that S. 278B of the Act,  makes the directors of the company in charge of its affairs liable for the offence committed by it unless the presumption is rebutted by such director. For the purpose of S. 278B once the offence is shown to have been committed by the company, then the liability of the directors in charge of its affairs is attracted. The burden then shifts to such directors to show that the offence occurred without their knowledge or that they had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. Allowing the petitions of the revenue, the Court held that, the  directors of the company were convicted for the offence under section 276B for the three assessment years in question 1982-83 to 1984-85. Both the lower criminal courts had erred in acquitting the directors of the assessee only because they were not issued separate show-cause notices. Both the directors had signed the company’s balance-sheets and therefore their defence that they were not in charge of the affairs of the company was untenable. Considering that the matters pertained to the assessment years 1982-83 to 1984-85 and given the long pendency of the matters, the directors were given the benefit of probation. Accordingly, while sentencing the directors to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000 each for the offence under section 276B for each of the assessment years in question and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days, they were granted the benefit of probation and directed to file a bond of good behaviour in the trial court in the sum of Rs.10,000 each for the period of six months. The judgments of the District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate were set aside. (AY. 1982-83 1983-84 & 1984-85)