9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging that the company on 15th November, 1971, had employed Ashok Rai in its project of manufacturing scooters and in that capacity the respondent was permitted to use and occupy a portion of the premises at 22, Ferozeshah Road, that the employment of Ashok Rai was terminated by the company on or about 11th October, 1976, and that after the termination of the services the Manager of the Delhi Office of the complainant company on several occasions requested Ashok Rai to vacate the premises but he had been assuring to do so but has not vacated the premises till date and that instead of vacating the premises the respondent had started using part of the premises for commercial purpose. The company alleged that the respondent was wrongfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint clearly alleged that on the employment of the respondent, the respondent was given the right to use and occupy premises at 22, Ferozeshah Road and that after the termination of the services on 11th October, 1976, the respondent in spite of repeated requests had not vacated the said premises and he was wrongfully withholding the property. The said allegations if proved would clearly bring the case within the ambit of section 630 of the Companies Act. Shri Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent, made no attempt to support the impugned judgment on the first ground. Shri Grover, learned counsel for the company, strenuously contended that the offence under section 630 of the Companies Act is a continuing wrong and, therefore, each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th October, 1976 (assuming that the respondent was given possession of the property 22, Ferozeshah Road, as a condition of his employment), the possession of the respondent had become wrongful unless it is shown or proved that he continued in possession under some legal sanction. The expression "continuing offence" has been defined in the following terms by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in State v. Bhiwandiaallah, AIR 1955 Bom. 161 (headnote): "The expression 'continuing offence' though not a very happy expression, has acquired a well-recognised meaning in criminal law. If an act committed by an accused person constitutes an offence and if that act continues from day to day, then from day to day a fresh offence is commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not only the criminal but the civil remedy, as well. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the offence under section 630(1)( b ) of the Companies Act is complete as soon as committed and it is not a continuing offence. The next question that falls for determination is as to on which date the limitation commenced. The company in para 3 of the complaint has alleged that the services of the respondent were terminated on 11th October, 1976, but the respondent requested that he may be given some time to vacate the premises and in the next paragraph the company has alleged that thereafter the Manager of the Delhi Office of the complainant on several occasions requested Ashok Rai to vacate the premises but the respondent kept on assuring th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the date of the offence and, therefore, is clearly barred by time. Shri Grover contended that it is a fit case where the court should extend the period of limitation. Section 473 which gives the power for extending the period of limitation reads as under : "473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained or that it. is necessary so to do in the interests of justice". The learned trial Magistrate did not think it to be a fit case for condonin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment". It is clear from a reading of the above provisions that the court under sub-section (2) could make an order directing the respondent to deliver the possession of the property or in default to undergo imprisonment for a term extending up to two years. In this view, the limitation would be three years and not six months as held by the Magistrate. The main reason given by the Magistrate for not extending the period of limitation is that the company had filed no application for condoning the delay. We find from a reading of section 473 of the Code of Crim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
