Amrit Lal Chum Vs. Devoprasad Dutta Roy
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986.
Petitioner: Amrit Lal Chum
Respondent: Devoprasad Dutta Roy
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986.
Judges: A.P.SEN, E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & L.M.SHARMA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 20, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Companies Act, 1956; section 630(1) – Wrongful withholding of property after termination of employment – The term ‘officer or employee’ means not only the present officers but also include the past officers and employees of the Company – The words ‘any such property’ in cl.(b) of section 630(1) qualify the words ‘any property of a company’ appearing in cl.(a).
COMPANIES ACT, 1956:
Sections 630(1) – Wrongful withholding of property after termination of employment – The term ‘officer or employee’ means not only the present officers but also include the past officers and employees of the Company – The words ‘any such property’ in cl.(b) of section 630(1) qualify the words ‘any property of a company’ appearing in cl.(a) – Decision of the two Judge Bench of the Court in JT 1987(3) 581 approved.
Cases Reffered:
1. Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh, (1982) 52 Company Cases 1.
2. Govind T. Jagtiani v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi, (1984) 56 Company Cases 329.
3. Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., JT 1987(3) SC 581 = (1987) 4 SCC 361.
4. Amrit Lal Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, (1987) 61 Company Cases 211.
2. Govind T. Jagtiani v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi, (1984) 56 Company Cases 329.
3. Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., JT 1987(3) SC 581 = (1987) 4 SCC 361.
4. Amrit Lal Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, (1987) 61 Company Cases 211.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. After hearing Shri S.K.Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 at quite some length, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed by this Court in the recent judgment in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI V. SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.* (1987) 4 SCC 361 overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AMRIT LAL CHUM V. DEVI RANJAN JHA (1987) 61 Company cases 211 as to the scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S* case has placed a beneficient construction on the provisions contained in sub-s.(1) of s. 630 of the Act and according to it the term ‘officer or employee’ in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and employees of a company but also to include the past officers and employees of the Company. It has also taken the view that the words ‘any such property’ in cl.(b) thereof qualify the words ‘any property of a company’ appearing in cl.(a). As observed in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S CASE, s. 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully retains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment. It is the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of the company after termination the employment, which is an offence under s.630(1)(b) of the Act. The construction placed by this Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S case is the only construction possible. There is therefore no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term ‘officer or employee’ appearing in sub-s.(1) of s.630 of the Act as meaning only the existing officers and employees and not those whose employment have been terminated. The Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S case has expressly overruled the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AMRIT LAL CHUM V. DEVI RANJAN JHA, supra, against which these appeal have been filed and upheld that consistent view to the contrary taken by the High Court of Bombay in a series of cases. See :HARKISHIN LAKHIMAL GIDWANI V. ACHYUT KASHINATH WAGH (1982) 52 Company Cases 1 and GOVIND T. JAGTIANI V. SIRAJUDDIN S. KAZI, (1984) 56 Company Cases 329.
2. Accordingly, these appeals must succeed and are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under s.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are set aside.
3. Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation. We grant the respondents time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said undertaking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Division Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paragana shall continue. In the event of respondents’ failure to file the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time specified, the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than October 31, 1988.
4. The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited is not pressed.
Appeals allowed.
1. After hearing Shri S.K.Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 at quite some length, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the one expressed by this Court in the recent judgment in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI V. SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ANR.* (1987) 4 SCC 361 overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AMRIT LAL CHUM V. DEVI RANJAN JHA (1987) 61 Company cases 211 as to the scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S* case has placed a beneficient construction on the provisions contained in sub-s.(1) of s. 630 of the Act and according to it the term ‘officer or employee’ in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and employees of a company but also to include the past officers and employees of the Company. It has also taken the view that the words ‘any such property’ in cl.(b) thereof qualify the words ‘any property of a company’ appearing in cl.(a). As observed in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S CASE, s. 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully retains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment. It is the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of the company after termination the employment, which is an offence under s.630(1)(b) of the Act. The construction placed by this Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S case is the only construction possible. There is therefore no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the term ‘officer or employee’ appearing in sub-s.(1) of s.630 of the Act as meaning only the existing officers and employees and not those whose employment have been terminated. The Court in BALDEV KRISHNA SAHI’S case has expressly overruled the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in AMRIT LAL CHUM V. DEVI RANJAN JHA, supra, against which these appeal have been filed and upheld that consistent view to the contrary taken by the High Court of Bombay in a series of cases. See :HARKISHIN LAKHIMAL GIDWANI V. ACHYUT KASHINATH WAGH (1982) 52 Company Cases 1 and GOVIND T. JAGTIANI V. SIRAJUDDIN S. KAZI, (1984) 56 Company Cases 329.
2. Accordingly, these appeals must succeed and are allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under s.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are set aside.
3. Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.1 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation. We grant the respondents time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today. If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said undertaking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas and Complaint Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Division Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paragana shall continue. In the event of respondents’ failure to file the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time specified, the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in any event, not later than October 31, 1988.
4. The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited is not pressed.
Appeals allowed.
