Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1999 (5) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... os. 63 and 64 of 1995. Both the petitions have arisen in this way: The respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 ('the Act'). It has five Directors of whom the petitioner holds 20 per cent of the subscribed capital. The petitioner's father was also a Director. He held another 20 per cent of the subscribed capital. After the demise of his father, the petitioner holds 40 per cent of the subscribed capital. The other four Directors of the company are in enimical terms with the petitioner. In order to get rid of the petitioner from the company they create false record to the effect that the petitioner did not attend three consecutive Board Meetings and consequently, he ceased to be a Director as per the provisions of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ffence and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The petitioner preferred Crl. C.R.P. No. 63 of 1995 but the learned Sessions Judge Confirmed the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate against which the petitioner has preferred Crl. O.P. No. 6150 of 1998. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner is invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1882, to set aside the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judges 4. Section 630 recites as under: " Penalty for wrongful withholding of property. (1) If any officer or employee of a company ( a )wrongfully obtains possession .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs of the Board of director, or from all meetings of the Board for a continuous period of three months, whichever is longer, without obtaining leave of absence from the Board." Combined reading of all these sections would go to show, to attract an offence under section 630, two ingredients should be made out: ( a )wrongfully obtaining possession of any property of a company or; ( b )having been placed in possession of any such property during the course of employment, he should be wrongfully withholding or the possession of it after termination of his employment. 7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that all the records mentioned and the motorcycle are admittedly the properties of the company. The peti- tioner admits that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the title to the property, it has been held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the title under section 630. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision in V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra [1995] 5 SCC 767 to stress that the judgment of the Criminal Court stands superseded by the judgment of the Civil Court. According to the learned Counsel now that the petitioner has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 726 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore, which is pending trial. If the learned District Munsif holds that the petitioner still continues to be a Director then the fine and the default imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner, would be to the detriment to the honour of the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ming to the facts of the instant case, it should be pointed out that the complaint has been preferred against the petitioner as early as 1993. The Trial Court has disposed of the matter on 23-5-1995 and the Revisional Court has also disposed of the matter on 17-3-1998. It is curious that the petitioner had filed the civil suit only during 1998. Of course, the petitioner had filed a company petition in C.P. No. 1 of 1996 before this Court, which was later dismissed. Even C.P. No. 1 of 1996 had not been filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate disposed of the criminal case pending against the petitioner. What has been stated by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Atul Mathur's case ( supra ) squarely applies to the facts of the in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates