Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
P.S. TEJI, J.
MANAN CHAND THROUGH LRS. MEERA DEVI – Petitioner
versus
STATE & ANR - Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 562/2015
Decided On : 28-03-2016
Mr. Prem Sagar Pal, Advocate with petitioner in person.
Mr. Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr.Manish Srivastava,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, in cases of unauthorized occupation of premises by employees after retirement.
Headnote:
Companies Act - Unauthorized Occupation of Premises - Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Companies Act, 1956, Section 630 - The judgment discusses the unauthorized occupation of premises by an employee after retirement and the legal provisions under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. It highlights the employer-employee relationship, the penalty for unauthorized occupation, and the interpretation of the legal provisions by referring to relevant case laws.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Smt. Meera Devi, was convicted for unauthorized occupation of a quarter belonging to the respondent company under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. Despite multiple court orders, she failed to vacate the premises and pay the imposed fine, leading to her judicial custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the premises since 01.01.1990 and had failed to comply with the court orders to vacate the premises and pay the fine. The court upheld the lower court's decision and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The issues involved unauthorized occupation of premises, employer-employee relationship, imposition of fine, and compliance with court orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the employer-employee relationship, the penalty for unauthorized occupation under Section 630 of the Companies Act, and the interpretation of legal provisions as per relevant case laws to uphold the lower court's decision.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's judicial custody was upheld.
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 22.08.2015 and order on sentence dated 11.03.2014 passed by the Trial Court and for releasing the petitioner from the custody.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant/respondent no.2-herein filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the accused Maman Chand (since deceased) alleging that he was an employee of erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board which was divided into different distribution companies and the respondent no.2 took the over the same vide notification dated 13.11.2001. The respondent no.2 company came into existence on 01.07.2002 which took over the assets, liabilities and employees of the erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board. It was alleged that the deceased was allotted Flat No.H-105, Block-H. Type-I, Tripolia Colony, Delhi on the conditions that he would retain the same till he remained in the employment. The deceased was superannuated on 31.08.1989 but he failed to vacate the quarter within the stipulated period of four months from retirement and had been residing unauthorizedly since 01.01.1990. A legal notice was sent to the deceased for vacation of the quarter and to pay the licence fees/damages, but he failed to comply with the same.
3. Cognizance on the complaint was taken and the petitioner Manan Chand was summoned. In the summon report dated 22.03.2007, it was reported that Manan Chand had expired. Thereafter, on the application of the complainant for bringing the LRs of deceased on record, notice was isused to Smt. Kamla Devi which was received back with the report that she had also expired. Thereafter, on the application for bringing LR of deceased on record, Smt. Meera Devi was impleaded on behalf of late Sh. Manan Chand.
4. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon Smt. Meera for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the complainant/respondent No.2 examined one witness. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In her defence evidence, the accused examined two witnesses. After conclusion of trial, the petitioner was held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act vide judgment dated 06.03.2014. Vide order on
sentence dated 11.03.2014, a fine of Rs.500/-per month was imposed upon the petitioner Smt.Meera Devi from January, 1990 to February, 2014 totaling to Rs.1,44,500/-. It was ordered that in case the convict vacates the quarter in dispute within two months, the fine would not be recovered. It was further ordered that if the convict failed to vacate the quarter and failed to deposit the fine, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of fine. The convict was directed to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the quarter in question to the complainant company within two months failing which, she shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.`
5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal which was dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 16.05.2014. However, on the undertaking given by the petitioner, she was directed to vacate the premises in question by 31.12.2014. It was directed by the appellate Court that in case the appellant/petitioner-herein committed the breach of the undertaking or failed to vacate the premises by 31.12.2014, the order on sentence passed by the Trial Court shall be enforced. Since the petitioner failed to hand over the vacant and physical possession of the premises in question to the complainant company, the learned ACMM vide order dated 22.08.2015 sent the petitioner to judicial custody. However, it was recorded that the keys of the premises was handed ove
