9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Santhome High Road, Madras- 4. The above said premises was taken on lease by the Company and the same-was allotted to the petitioner under Ex.P-4, allotment order dated 15.11.1977 with retrospective effect from 11.04.1976, the date of occupation of the premises by him. During October 1987 disciplinary proceedings for mis-conduct against him had been instituted resulting in his dismissal from service by Ex.P-5 order with effect from 30.12.1987 Thereafter a notice under Ex.P.6 dated 09.01.1988 was is sued directing him to vacate the premises forthwith. Neither did he send a reply nor comply with the notice. The Company authorised its Branch Manager V.S Narendranath, respondent herein to lodge a prosecution against him under Section 630 of the Companies Act (herein after referred to as the Act ) Ex.P-1 is the Povrer of Attorney authorising the respondent to lodge the prosecution and Ex.P-2 is the xerox copy of the same. The respondent, pursuant to the authorisation so given to him, lodged the the prosecution against the petitioner before learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (E.O.I) Egmore, Madras for an offence under Section 630(2) of the Act, appeared to have been commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany in the circumstances of the case and consequently its invoking the provisions of section 630 of the Act is not legally permissible. 7. Regarding the first bone of contention, there is no dispute whatever that the petitioner had been dismissed from service with effect from 30.12.1987 It is also not in dispute that he had challenged his order of dismissal before the competent forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner would intend that because the proceedings initiated by him challenging the order of dismissal had been pending, it is not legally permissible for the institution of a criminal prosecution against him as has been done in the instant case by preference of a complaint under Section 630 of the Act. To this contention, I am unable to affix my seal of approval. The proceedings initiated by him challenging his dismissal from service are altogether distinct and different from the launching of prosecution by the Company under Section 630 of the Act. Different consideration would prevail regarding the decision in the respective cases. 8. What is required to be proved for the institution of Criminal prosecution under Section 63 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court dismissed the same giving rise to a Special Leave Application under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on a careful consideration of the relevant provisions of the Income-Tax Act, took the view that the pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 276-C and 277 of the Income Tax Act. The institution of criminal proceedings would not in the circumstances of the case also amount to an abuse of process of court. The High Court was therefore right in refusing to quash the prosecution proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C So observing the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Application. 10. My attention also has been drawn by learned counsel appearing for the respondent to the decision reported in Seenichamy V. Ramakrishnammal (1978 L.W Crl.P.175) wherein this court has held as follows: The point at issue in the Civil suit is entirely different from the point at issue in the Criminal proceedings. In the criminal proceeding the rights of the parties are not decided. The Criminal Court deals with the question as to wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isions adumberated in that Section. Accommodation is provided by the company as a condition of service to attract the best of talents. Therefore, once a person is lawfully employed in the company, he is given office accommodation for efficient discharge of his function during his career in the company. The moment he ceased to be an employee of the company, either on account of his superannuation or otherwise in the sense of his being terminated from service, by way of dismissal, then it naturally follows that the company has to retrieves the property allotted to such a person whilst he was in service. The beneficient provisions had been enacted in the shape of Section 630 of the Act for enabling the Company to retrieve the property with utmost expediency, once the employee ceased to be an employee of the company. In case, if he is not in a position to hand over the office accommodation subsequent to his ceasing to be an employee of the Company, launching of prosecution had been contemplated under the said Section against such a person. Viewed from this angle an attempt may now be made to give a meaning to the term property used in Section 630 of the Act. To expect the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the proviso to clause (d) of section 376 Cr.P.C which provides that an appeal may be brought against any such sentence, if any other punishment is combined with it . No doubt true it is, that the petitioner had been convicted under Section 630(1)(b) read with Section 630(2) of the Act and sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 200/- with a direction to deliver possession of the premises to the respondent within three months, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. From the conviction and sentence, it is rather clear that the sentence of fine of ₹ 200/- is combined with the sentence of imprisonment for two weeks in case he disobeys the direction to deliver the possession of the premises to the respondent within three months. As such proviso to clause (d) of section 376 Cr.P.C gets attracted to such a situation and an appeal, if preferred, is quite competent. Unfortunately no appeal had been preferred as against the conviction and sentence, but only a revision had been preferred before the Principal Court of Sessions Madras, for the reasons best known to the petitioner. It is not as if under the aforesaid proviso appeal alone has to be brought in, in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the move before the High Court was really on application for revision of the order of the Magistrate releasing the truck. That is exactly what is prohibited under S.397(3), Cr.P.C Merely by saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercise of its inherent power was being invoked the statutory bar could not have been over come. If that was to be permitted every revision application facing the bar of S.397 (3) of the Code could be labeled as one under sec. 482. We are satisfied that this is a case where the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The appeal is allowed and we set aside the order of the High Court. The order of the Magistrate as affirmed by the Session Judge is upheld. 17. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition to quash the order of the Sessions Court passed in revision that though it may be true that when there is a specific provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for a revision, filing of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C thereof, after exhausting the remedy, by way of revision, is not maintainable, the inherent power of the High Court cannot be whittled down or taken away merely b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmit that the inherent powers of the High court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is always there and the same can be invoked if there are circumstances warranting for the invoking of the power under the aforesaid section. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent at this juncture would intrude and submit even assuming for argument's sake, that the proposition of law as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner interpreting the decision in Rajan Kumar Machananda v. state of Karnataka (1989 L.W.Cr.64) is correct, even then there are no materials in the instant case pointing out the presence of any grave defect in the procedure or any illegality committed by the courts below causing prejudice to the cause of justice and thereby calling for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C The materials available on record if persued in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, would make it abundantly clear the complete absence of any such materials warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C As such this bone of contention also fails as of no substance. 19. The last contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that M/s Jay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
