1984 (8) TMI 359 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Validity of the acquittal order by the Sessions Judge.
3. Determination of jurisdiction under Section 630 of the Companies Act.
4. Interpretation of agreements between the company and the landlord.
5. Existence of a bona fide dispute regarding the title to the premises.
6. Applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act to the accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The learned counsel for the accused contended that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against orders of acquittal is not maintainable due to the remedy provided under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Additionally, it was argued that an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invoking inherent powers of the court, cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction. The complainant company had no satisfactory answer to these contentions. Consequently, the court held that neither the writ petition under Article 227 nor the application under Section 482 was maintainable, leading to the discharge of the rule granted in Writ Petition No. 259 of 1984.

2. Validity of the Acquittal Order:
The complainant company also filed an application under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal order. The court condoned the delay in filing the application, granted leave, admitted the appeal, and treated the arguments advanced as those in the appeal itself. The main question was whether the Magistrate could determine the dispute as to the title to or property in the suit premises under Section 630 of the Companies Act or if it should be left to the civil court.

3. Jurisdiction under Section 630 of the Companies Act:
Section 630 of the Companies Act penalizes wrongful withholding of property by an officer or employee of a company. The court noted that the Magistrate's jurisdiction under this section extends only to cases where there is no bona fide dispute regarding the property being that of the company. In cases involving such disputes, particularly those of a civil nature, the Magistrate should not determine the same under the summary procedure envisaged by Section 630. The Supreme Court's decision in Karamchand Ganga Pershad v. Union of India was cited to emphasize that civil court decisions are binding on criminal courts, but not vice versa.

4. Interpretation of Agreements:
The main dispute was the interpretation of three agreements between the landlord and the company, styled as "Paying Guest" agreements. The question was whether these agreements made the company a licensee or tenant. The Sessions Judge held that the agreements were license agreements and did not create any interest in the premises in favor of the company. The company had no existing right in the premises after the expiry of the last agreement on December 31, 1975.

5. Bona Fide Dispute:
The accused claimed to be a tenant directly from the landlord and argued that the company had no interest in the premises. The company alleged that a letter supporting the accused's claim was forged. The Magistrate accepted the company's allegation, but the Sessions Judge found that the dispute regarding the title to the premises was bona fide and of a purely civil nature, best left to the civil court. The pending suit filed by the accused in the Small Causes Court for a declaration of tenancy and the injunction against eviction further supported this view.

6. Applicability of Section 630 to the Accused:
The accused contended that he was not an employee of the company at the date of the complaint, and thus, the charge under Section 630 could not be sustained. The Sessions Judge's finding that the dispute fell outside the ambit of Section 630 and within the jurisdiction of the civil court was upheld. The complainant company's reliance on previous decisions was found inapplicable as they did not address the point at issue.

Conclusion:
The appeal against the acquittal was dismissed. The Declaratory Suit No. 1366 of 1983 filed by the accused in the Small Causes Court, claiming tenancy, and the dispute before the Labour Court, being I.D.A. No. 199 of 1980, were expedited.