9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Criminal Procedure, challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentences recorded by the Magistrate and confirmed by the lower appellate court. The synopsised facts of the revision are that M/s. Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd., is a company under the Companies Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and is having its registered office at 4-A, Hansalya, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. The production unit of the company is Pilkhani Distillery and Chemical Works, Pilkhani, police station Saraswa, Tehsil Nakur, district Saharanpur. The revisionist accused Rakesh Kumar was employed in the said distillery as yeast man. Being in service of the distillery Rakesh Kumar was allotted companies residential quarter No. C-2 situated with the premises of Pilkhani Distillery colony vide letter No. PD-762/93 94 dated June 9, 1993. The services of Rakesh Kumar accused revisionist was however terminated en September 18, 2002 vide termination letter of the even date issued by the general manager, Pilkhani Distillery and Chemical Works, Pilkhani. The termination letter was dispatched to the accused revisionist through registered post on his correct postal address but he refused to receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n February 13, 2003, through Sri R.K. Kalia, commercial manager, M/s. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd., in the court of the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 334 of 2003, Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar. The Special C. J. M., Meerut, recorded the statement of the complainant R. K. Kalia under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and being satisfied that prima facie offence under section 630 of the Companies Act was disclosed the Magistrate summoned the accused revisionist for the said offence. In trial pre-charge statement of the accused was recorded wherein the accused accepted allotment of the quarter No. C-2 to him on June 9, 1993, and also admitted it as his residential abode. However, he took the plea that his services had not been terminated and he had not received any notice regarding vacation of the said quarter. He also pleaded that his possession was not illegal as the case against his termination was pending before the Labour Court. He also pleaded that the company has not paid his legal dues and the complaint against him has been filed maliciously due to enmity. The accused revisionist cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and dismissed in part by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 10, Meerut, vide his impugned order dated December 7, 2006. Lower appellate court confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the trial Magistrate dated October 15, 2004, with modification that the quarter be vacated within a period of one month by the revisionist and handed over vacant possession to the company and that the damages be also deposited within the said period calculating it from September 20, 2002, till vacation of the said quarter and in the event of default in payment of damages the revisionist will undergo six months simple imprisonment. The lower appellate court also directed the revisionist to appear before the trial Magistrate on January 8, 2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders the instant revision has been filed in this court by the accused revisionist Rakesh Kumar. I have heard Sri Sunil Vashisth learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vivek Chowdhary learned counsel for respondent No. 2 complainant-company and the learned A.G.A. from opposite sides at a great length and have gone through the record of this revision. Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that since the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided by the apex court in many judgments with binding precedents. The apex court has taken a view that section 630 of the Companies Act also takes into its purview those employees also who were in the service of the company and whose services were terminated subsequently. It also laid down that even relatives and dependants of such employee who were residing with him in the premises in question are also covered under that section. In Lalita Jalan v. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. [2003] 114 Comp. Cas. 515 (SC); [20031 6 SCC 107, it has been held by the apex court that section 630 of the Companies Act is not a penal provision and therefore, strict construction like other criminal statutes does not apply in a proceedings under section 630 of the Companies Act. It has further held that the employee or the officer of the company to whom the property of the company was allotted or anyone claiming through him such property as family members or heirs are also covered under section 630 of the Companies Act and they can be proceeded with if they choose to remain in occupation, illegally without the permission of the company in the said premises and doesn't vacate it after being ask to vacate. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fective and operative. The court held as under in paragraph 7 of the report (page 10 of 63 Comp. Cas.) : '7. The beneficent provision contained in section 630 no doubt penal, has been purposely enacted by the Legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company: ( a ) where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtains possession of properly of the company, or ( b ) where having been placed in possession of any such property during the course of his employment, wrongfully withholds possession of it after the termination of his employment. It is the duty of the court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy." His Lordships has further been pleased to hold in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment as follows (page 521 of 114 Comp Cas) : "In Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath [1991] 71 Comp. Cas. 403 (SQ ; [1991] 2 SCC 141, the court following Baldev Krishna Sahi [1987] 4 SCC 361; [1988] 63 Comp. Cas. 1 (SC) and Amrit Lal Chum v. Devoprasad Dutta Roy [1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umstances it may not be very proper to prosecute his wife and dependent children also as they are bound to stay with him in the same premises. The position will be different where the erstwhile or former employee is himself not in occupation of the premises either on account of the fact that he is dead or he is living elsewhere. In such cases all those who have come in possession of the premises with the express or implied consent of the employee and have not vacated the premises would be withholding the delivery of the property to the company and, therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted under section 630 of the Act. This will include anyone else who has been inducted in possession of the property by such persons who continue to withhold the possession of the premises as such person is equally responsible for withholding and non-delivery of the property of the company." The same point was reconsidered in Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. v. Manjula S. Agarwalla [2005] 125 Comp. Cas. 477 (SC) ; [2005] 5 SCC 30. In the aforesaid judgment hon'ble P.P. Naolekar J., speaking for the Bench has held in paragraph 13 as follows (page 487) : "13. In the matter of Baldev Krishna S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the possession of the property of the company and to impose a sentence of imprisonment when there is non-compliance of the order of the court regarding delivery or refund of the property of the company." Without loathing this judgment further with binding precedents on the point canvassed by learned counsel for the revisionist which has been answered in the negative in other judgments also, I make a reference of some of these judgments here : Smt. Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox and Kings ( India ) Ltd. [1995] 84 Comp. Cas. 28 (SC) ; [1995] 3 SCC 732 and R. Antony v. Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. BLLJ 135. In view of the above law laid down by the apex-court the first contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that since the services of the revisionist accused was terminated, therefore, section 630 of the Companies Act is does not apply no longer holds good and is hereby repelled. Coming to the next contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that since the termination order was under challenge before the Labour Court therefore the possession of the revisionist accused cannot be said to be illegal and he cannot be proceeded against under section 630 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
