JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant complainant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru in C.C.No.236/2017 dated 18.3.2019, where under the complaint filed by the complainant came to be dismissed by acquitting the accused.

2. have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Udaya Holla on behalf of Sri. L.M.Chidanandaya, Advocate for appellant and have also heard Sri. M.R. Narayan, Advocate for respondent.

3. Though this case is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

4. Case of the complainant in brief is that premises bearing No.49 was obtained on lease for sum of Rs.50,000/-per month. Since accused was appointed as Marking Manager in the complainant Company, the said premises was allotted as official quarters to the accused. Accused resigned through letter dated 8.10.2016 and the same was accepted on 10.10.2016 by Board of Directors. It is further case of the complainant that complainant called upon the accused to quit and hand over the vacant possession of the scheduled premises, but accused sought some time to vacate till the end of November 2016, but he failed to keep his promise. Thus, complainant through letter 22.3.2017 called upon the accused to vacate and hand over the possession of the schedule premises. Subsequently accused created the documents contending that one Mr.M.Babanna has agreed to give the schedule premises as gift and he also filed suit in O.S.No.2322/2017. As the accused did not vacate the schedule premises and has committed an offence under Section 452 of the Companies Act (hereinafter called as an ‘Act’ in short), complainant got issued legal notice dated 24.4.2017 to vacate and hand over the schedule premises, but he did not vacate, as such private complaint was registered. The Court below took the cognizance, summoned the accused, after following the formalities charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty, he claims to be tried, as such the case was fixed for trial.

5. Complainant got examined two witnesses and got marked 53 documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded and accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked 173 documents. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned judgment of acquittal came to be passed. Challenging the same, the complainant appellant is before this Court.

6. It is the specific contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondent was an employee of M/S. P.M. Granites Exports Private Limited, subsequently he resigned to the said post on 8.10.2016 and the same was accepted by the Board on 10.10.2016 and as such he is not an employee of the complainant Company. As per Section 452 of the Act he is liable to be evicted and liable to be prosecuted and punished in this behalf. It is his further submission that the fact of resignation has not been denied and the signature therein has also not been disputed. Under such circumstances, legally he is not entitled to continue in the said premises. It is his further submission that TDS Certificate got marked at Ex.P36 clearly goes to show that TDS has been deducted in respect of salary of the accused for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. It is his further submission that the lease property is bearing No.49, (old No.218), even all the endorsement of BBMP and the Police clearly establishes the fact that the respondent accused is in occupation of premises bearing No.49, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage, Rashtrakavi Kuvempu Nagar, Bannerghatta, Bengaluru. It is his further submission that earlier the accused was working with M/S. P.M. Swimming Centre and subsequently the said centre was closed and accused was taken to M/S.P.M.Granite Exports Private Limited. Even EPF and other records clearly go to show that his services have not been continued. It is his further contention that by fabricating the document h