JUDGMENT

A.S.ANAND, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) BOTH these appeals raise a common question of law and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(3) THE admitted facts, which alone are relevant for the purpose of these appeals and are not in dispute are that the appellants in both the cases are the legal heirs of the employees/officers who died in harness while serving with the respective respondent-Company. The employees concerned in both the cases had been allotted premises during their service by their respective employer (respondent-Company) and on the failure of the appellants to hand over the vacant possession of the allotted premises after the demise of the employee/officer concerned, prosecutions were launched against them (legal heirs) under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The appellants approached the High court through petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the provisions of Section 630 of the Act cannot be invoked against the legal heirs of a deceased employee, who had died in harness, and as such the complaint against them under Section 630 of the Act was not maintainable. The High court dismissed their petitions filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, these appeals.

(4) THE meaningful question and as a matter of fact the only question which has been canvassed before us is: whether a petition under Section 630 of the Act is maintainable against the legal heirs of a deceased officer or an employee for retrieval of the companys property?

(5) WITH a view to answer the question, it is desirable that we may first notice the provisions of Section 630 of the Act. The said section reads:

630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of property.- (1 If any officer or employee of a company- (a) wrongfully obtains possession 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, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.

(6) THERE was a divergence of opinion between various High courts regarding the interpretation of the expression "any officer or employee of a company" occurring in clause (1 of Section 630 of the Act. The Bombay High court in Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh gave a broader interpretation to the words and held that the expression would include an ex-officer or an ex-employee of the company also while the Calcutta High court in Arnritlal Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jhc - gave a narrow interpretation and opined that an ex-officer or an ex-employee is not included in the said expression and that the applicability of the provisions is restricted to an existing employee or officer. The High court of Madhya Pradesh in Beharilal v. Binod Mills Co. Ltd? following the Calcutta High court view held that the provisions embodied in Section 630(1 of the Act do not contemplate criminal proceedings being launched against relatives of an erstwhile employee or officer for recovering the possession of the property of the company.

(7) THIS court while hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High court in Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd. resolved the conflict and set the controversy at rest. It was held that the expression officer or employee of a company applies not only to existing officers or employees but also includes past o