2004 (4) TMI 321 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous finding by the Magistrate regarding the property being in the custody of the Court Receiver.
2. Failure to prove wrongful possession of the property by the accused.
3. Permissibility of the accused to continue occupation based on alleged assurances.
4. Impact of civil suits and orders on the criminal proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Erroneous Finding by the Magistrate Regarding the Property Being in the Custody of the Court Receiver:
The appeal challenges the Magistrate's decision, which concluded that the property being in the custody of the Court Receiver prevented the Magistrate from ordering the restoration of the property to the complainant. The Magistrate held that the rights of the parties, being civil rights, should be decided by a competent Civil Court in a suit filed by both parties. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Magistrate did not have the authority to order possession restoration when the matter was sub judice before a competent Court.

2. Failure to Prove Wrongful Possession of the Property by the Accused:
The complainant argued that the Magistrate erred in concluding that the complainant failed to prove the wrongful possession of the property by the accused. The evidence presented included testimonies of prosecution witnesses and various exhibits. However, the High Court found that the accused were under a bona fide impression that they had the right to continue in the flat until they received another flat as per the agreement. The High Court noted that the accused's occupation could not be deemed wrongful, especially since the property was in the custody of the Court Receiver.

3. Permissibility of the Accused to Continue Occupation Based on Alleged Assurances:
The accused claimed they were permitted to stay in the flat based on assurances from Mr. Goenka, the non-executive Chairman of the Board of Directors. The High Court noted that the accused had reiterated these assurances in their correspondence and testimonies. The Court found no specific denial from the complainant company or Mr. Goenka regarding these assurances. The High Court concluded that the accused had made out a probable and plausible defense that they were allowed to occupy the flat until the other flat was made available, thereby negating the claim of wrongful possession.

4. Impact of Civil Suits and Orders on the Criminal Proceedings Under Section 630 of the Companies Act:
The High Court considered the ongoing civil suits and the orders passed therein, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and the injunction preventing dispossession except by due process of law. The Court emphasized that Section 630 proceedings being penal in nature could not be considered the due process of law for recovering possession. The High Court upheld the Magistrate's view that the civil rights and the outcome of the civil suits should determine the possession issues, not the criminal proceedings under Section 630.

Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Magistrate's order acquitting the accused, finding no reason to interfere with the decision. The appeal was rejected and dismissed, reiterating that the accused's occupation of the flat was not wrongful given the assurances and the ongoing civil litigation.