9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant have categorically stated on the basis of the records available that the premises in question belong to the Company and the same was given to the accused when he was in the employment. Hence, all objections raised by Mr. Majmudar in this regard are untenable and they are deserved to be rejected and are, accordingly, rejected. Appeal dismissed. - CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NOS. 311, 312, 313 AND 320 OF 2008 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2008 - K.A. PUJ, J. S.P. Majmudar and Vimal A. Purohit for the Petitioner. Pradip D. Bhate, K.M. Patel and Varun K. Patel for the Respondent. JUDGMENT 1. Since common issue is involved in all the four matters and since they are heard together, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. All these four criminal revision applications are filed by the petitioners - original accused against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya in Criminal Appeal Nos. 31, 12, 30 and 29 of 2002, dated 30-1-2008 whereby the learned Presiding Officer has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction dated 17-5-2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-2002 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and further imposing the penalty of Rs. 500 and in default, the petitioners shall have to undergo sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and also directed to give the vacant and peaceful possession of the quarters in question. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed Criminal Appeals under section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya had without taking into consideration the evidence on record as well as the written submissions filed by the petitioners dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners vide his judgment and order dated 31-1-2008. 6. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya which is under challenge in the present revision applications. 7. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that both the Courts below have erred in not appreciating the fact that the complaints ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhai Murad, an employee of the Company for the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act and under sections 408 and 447 of the IPC, acquitted the accused of the said criminal case in similar set of facts and circumstances on the ground that the Company has failed to prove that the residential quarter was given to the accused only during the service tenure of the accused and that the accused had wrongly withheld the residential quarter. The respondent No. 2 Company has challenged the said order of acquittal before this Court by way of preferring Criminal Misc. Application No. 1536 of 1982 and this Court had rejected the said application on the ground that there is no written contract produced on record, executed between the said employee and the respondent No. 2 Company. Despite the order of this Court in similar set of facts, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had convicted the petitioners in the present group of complaints and the orders passed in the said complaints have been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Khambhaliya. 10. Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that both the Courts below have failed to apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned and the terms and conditions between both the parties should also be mentioned and the contract bears the signature of both the parties. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no such agreement executed between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 Company. The agreement at Exh. 54 should not have been taken into consideration and, hence, it cannot be said that there is a breach of contract. He has further submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are absolutely illegal, bad in law, against the evidence on record, against the provisions of the Code and, hence, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 13. Lastly, Mr. Majmudar has submitted that Criminal Revision Application Nos. 951 to 954 of 2005 are filed by some other occupants challenging the similar orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and they are admitted by this Court and bails are granted. Hence, these matters be also admitted and be heard along with those matters. 14. Mr. Pradip Bhate, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat, has submitted that provisions of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 are very clear an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits of the matter are concerned, Mr. Patel has at length referred to the orders and judgments passed by the Courts below. He also invited the Court s attention to the provisions contained in section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and heavily relied on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lalita Jalan v. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd. [2002] 39 SCL 370 and Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. v. Manjula S. Agarwalla [2005] 60 SCL 280. 18. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties, perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and examined the findings recorded therein. The Court gave its anxious thoughts to the relevant statutory provisions and authorities cited before it. Considering the limited scope of revision and further considering the concurrent judgments and orders of the Courts below which are based on proper appreciation of evidence and correct understanding of law, this Court finds itself in complete agreement with the view taken by the Courts below and rejects these revisions at the very threshold. 19. Before dealing with rival contentions, it is necessary to have a close look at the provisions of section 630 of the Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and is not restored back to the Company, it will clearly amount to an offence within the meaning of section 630. It is further held that the object of section 630 is that the property of the Company is preserved and is not used for the purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles of association of the Company or as authorized by the provisions of the Act. The Court further held that the view expressed in Smt. Abhilash Vinod Kumar Jain v. Cox King s (India) Ltd. [1995] 4 SCL 167 (SC) clearly subserves the object of the Act which is to the effect of recovering the possession of the property belonging to the Company. If it is held that other members of the family of the employee or officer or any person not connected with the family who came into possession through such employee would not be covered by section 630, such a view will defeat the quick and expeditious remedy provided therein. The possession of the property by an employee or anyone claiming through him of such property is unlawful and recovery of the same on the pain of being committed to a prison or payment of fine cannot be stated to be unreasonable or irrational or unfair so as to attract the ri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endent tenancy rights from the principal landlord and, therefore, the decree for eviction was negatived. The Court, therefore, held that the findings recorded by the Criminal Court stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. Thereby, the findings of the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial court, in particular, in summary trial for offences under section 630. Here, out of four matters, only in two matters, suits are filed and they are still pending before the trial court and there is no decree in favour of the petitioners. Mere pendency of the suit has not have any effect of suspending the orders passed by the trial court as well as the Appellate Court in criminal proceedings. 23. The submission of Mr. Majmudar that the power of attorney holder cannot file complaint is also not acceptable in view of the fact that the Company is a corporate personality and it always acts through human agency. Even otherwise, the power of attorney itself makes it clear that the same has been given under the common seal of the Company pursuant to Resolution passed by its Board of Directors on 25-3-1991. Specific powers are given to the power of attor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on its behalf in any place either in or outside India. A deed signed by such an attorney on behalf of the company and under his seal where sealing is required, shall bind the Company and have the same effect as if it were under its common seal. Thus, taking any view of the matter, the complaint filed by the power of attorney is a valid complaint and the learned Magistrate has rightly entertained and taken the cognizance of the said complaint. 26. Mr. Majmudar s further submission that the power of attorney holder has not been examined and since the said power of attorney is an unregistered document, it is not proved as required under section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 67 states that if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. Even alleged agreement Exh. 54 has also not been proved as required under section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. Except alleged agreement Exh. 54, there is no other document which establishes that the petitioners were given the premises in quest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal jurisdiction, in view of the limited scope of the revision, all these criminal revision applications are summarily rejected. 28. While rejecting these revisions, the Court considers an alternative submission made by Mr. Majmudar to consider the case of the petitioners on sympathetic ground and to permit them to evict the quarters and to grant sometime for eviction of the quarters in question. Accordingly, the petitioners are hereby permitted to retain the quarters in question which they are occupying, till 30-11-2008 and are directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent-Company on or before that date. An undertaking to this effect shall be filed before this Court by each petitioners on or before 31-7-2008. The order regarding sentence shall remain suspended till 30-11-2008. It is, however, made clear that if the possession is not given on or before 30-11-2008, the same shall tantamount to contempt of this Court and the petitioners shall not only have to undergo the sentence but the respondent-Company is entitled to take forcible possession from them under police protection. 29. Subject to these observations, all these criminal revision appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
