9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The allegations in it are briefly as follows : Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. is manufacturing and selling scented betel-nuts called "Asoka". Messrs. Shenthil Traders, in which the accused is a smaller Hindu undivided family, was appointed as a distributor for the sale of manufactured scented betel-nut powder and the products under the brand name of "Asoka". By virtue of this appointment, the accused was the marketing director of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. The accused did not look after Asoka Betel-nut and the produce business properly. He was using the funds of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. for his own purposes. The accused was removed from the directorship on December 7, 1987. The accused is wrongfully withholdin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by rival counsel. To consider the submission, section 630(1) of the Act needs extraction. It reads as follows : "(1) If any officer or employee of a company ( a )wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company, or ( b )having any such property in his possession, wrongfully with holds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act". The complaint has been laid with the prayer for a direction to the accused to deliver the property cited in paragraph 14 of the complaint and punish him under section 630(1) of the Act. In paragraph 14, the amounts as per annexure 1 from Messrs. Shenthil Traders which can be substantiated by the office account books ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ason that it was not said to be the property which was returned. The amount due from Shenthil Traders was shown as the amount retained by the accused and for it, a direction was sought in paragraph 15 of the complaint. That apart, even assuming that the accused was using the funds of Messrs. Asoka Betel-nut Co. P. Ltd. for his own purposes, that was not the premise on which this complaint has been laid for offence under section 630(1) of the Act. Looking at the case from any angle, I am clear that the prosecution cannot be sustained. In the result, the petition is allowed. All further proceedings in STC No. 340 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Coimbatore, shall stand quashed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Corporate Laws ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
