9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of law to be determined by us in this appeal. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. [1995] (3) SCC 732 it has been argued on behalf of the company that the expression "officer or employee appearing in section 630 would include all his family members. 3. The admitted facts of the case are that one Mata Harsh Mishra, who is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of the Respondent No. 2, Joined the employment of the appellant-company as trainee Supervisor in its plant. He was allotted Flat No. 8 in Anil Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and possession delivered to him for the purpose of his residence during the course of employment while he was in the service of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession of any property of a company; or (b)having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, or suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years." 4. The divergence of opinion between various High Courts rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the draughtsman of the Act. The section is in two parts, Sub-section (1) by clauses (a) and (b ) creates two distinct and separate offences. First of these is the one contemplated by clause (a), namely, where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtains possession of any property of the company during the course of his employment, to which he is not entitled. Normally, it is only the present officers and employees who can secure possession of any property of a company. It is also possible for such an officer or employee after termination of his employment to wrongfully take away possession of any such property. This is the function of clause (a) and although it primarily refers to the existing officers and employees, it may al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved the dictum of this Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case (supra). In Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain's case (supra) this Court was concerned with the prosecution of the legal representatives of the deceased employee and in that context, it held : "The logical deduction of the analysis of section 630 of the Act in the light of the law laid down by this Court is that : (i )Clause (a) of the section is self-contained and independent of clause (b) with the capacity of creating penal liability embracing the case of an existing employee or an officer of the company and includes a past officer or a past employee of the company; (ii)Clause (b) is equally independent and distinct from clause (a) as regards penal consequences and its squarely applies t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would continue to enjoy the personality and status of the employee or the officer only. . . ." (p. 738) 6. This Court further held that section 630 is intended to provide speedy relief to the company where its property wrongfully obtained or wrong-fully withheld by an 'employee or a officer' or 'a past employee and officer' or 'legal heirs or representative' deriving their colour and content from such an employee or officer, insofar as the occupation of the property belonging to the company, is concerned. The beneficial provision would be defeated if the legal heirs or family members who continue in posses- sion of the allotted premises, are permitted to remain in possession despite the cessation of the relationship of deceased employee wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s who are otherwise not intended to be prosecuted or dealt with by Criminal Court. Accepting the contention of the appellant would amount to the violation of fundamental right of personal liberty as enshrined under article 21 of which declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The paramount object of article 21 is to prevent the encroachment of the right of a person with respect to his life and liberty, save in accordance with the procedure established by law and in conformity with the provisions thereof. Personal liberty envisaged under this article means freedom from physical restraint of a person by in carceration or otherwise. Agreeing with the plea of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
