The provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act and Section 406 of the IPC are strictly interpreted and apply only to existing officers and employees of a company, and to cases where entrustment can be established, respectively.

( 1 ) ON behalf of Messrs. Jardine Hendersons Ltd. , Amrit Lal Chum, one officer of the said company filed on June 28, 1983, a petition of complaint in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, under Sections 406, IPC, and Sections 630 of the Companies Act. The sum and substance of the complaint was that Debi Ranjan Jha, the accused, held various offices under the company during a long career but his service under the company came finally to an end on August 15, 1982. It was alleged that prior to that date, as an officer of the company, he was given possession of a furnished fiat in premises No. 27, Ballygunj Park, Calcutta, of which he was obliged to deliver up possession to the company on termination of his employment. It was alleged that having wrongfully retained possession of the flat after ceasing to be an officer of the company, Mr. Jha, the accused, committed an offence under Sections 630 of the Companies Act and having dishonestly and wilfully retained articles of furniture with which his flat was furnished, he committed further an offence under Sections 406, IPC. After cognizance was taken, the case was transferred to the court of Mr. P. K. Deb, Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. After examining the witness before charge by an order dated February 1, 1985, the learned Magistrate felt satisfied that there were materials for a charge under Sections 403, IPC, and he framed a charge accordingly. He, however, concluded that the case of complainant in so far as it came under the provisions of Section 630 of the Companies Act, the cognizance of the offence was barred by limitation. In respect of the offence under Sections 406, IPC, the learned Magistrate did not expressly record anything in his order. Both the complainant and the accused felt aggrieved with the order of the learned Magistrate dated February 1, 1985. The complainant company has come up in revision under Sections 401 read with Sections 482, Cr. PC, giving rise to Criminal Revisional Case No. 222 of 1985 wherein, on behalf of the company, grievance is made that on the materials placed before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate should have framed a charge under Sections 630 of the Companies Act, and also under Sections 406 of the IPC. On behalf of the accused, a revision application has been filed giving rise to Criminal Revision Case No. 448 of 1985. On behalf of the accused, it is argued with force that the learned Magistrate was wrong in concluding that materials placed before him were sufficient for framing a charge under Sections 403, IPC, and that the learned Magistrate was wrong in framing a charge under the said Sections 403, IPC.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the employment of the accused, Mr. Jha, as an officer of the company, Jardine Hendersons and Company, and its subsidiaries, was finally terminated on August 15, 1982, as alleged in para 8 of the complaint. There is again no dispute that from a date prior to the said date, as an officer of the aforesaid company, the accused was in possession of a residential flat in premises No. 27, Ballygunj Park, Calcutta, of which the company was a lessee and the said flat was suitably furnished with articles of furniture and many other things for the benefit and enjoy, ment of the accused. There is again no dispute that after the filing of the complaint, in execution of a search warrant, the company has recovered most of the articles from the flat in question which were in the possession and enjoyment of the accused. The accused, however, continues to possess the flat. Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned advocate, for the company read out before us the order of the learned Magistrate dated February 1, 1985, and points out that relying on the decision in the case of Harkishin Lakhimal Gidwani v. Achyut Kashinath Wagh, [1982] 52 Comp Cas 1 (Bom), the learned Magistrate concluded that the provisions of Sections 630 of the Companies Act could be invoked against the accused and he