Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
PURSHOTTAM IRON & STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT). LTD. - Appellant
Versus
RAJNEESH GUPTA - Respondent
CRL. A. 99/2012
Decided on : 14-7-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Rajesh Khanna, Adv.
For the Respondent:Respondent in person
In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the benefit of doubt, and the reluctance to interfere with findings of fact made by trial courts. Interference with an acquittal order is justified only if the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong, based on an erroneous view of the law, or likely to result in grave injustice.
Headnote:
COMPANY - WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING OF PROPERTY - SECTION 630 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING INTERFERENCE WITH ACQUITTAL ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a registered company, filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the respondent, an executive director of the company, wrongfully withheld various properties and records of the company. The respondent denied the allegations and claimed trial. The trial court, after considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, acquitted the respondent on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent in any manner wrongfully withheld any of the property or books or records of the company.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, on appeal, upheld the acquittal order of the trial court. The court held that the findings of the trial court were based on a careful analysis of the evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity. The court also noted that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent was in any manner entrusted with the properties or records in question, or that he was withholding the same. The court further observed that the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused was further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and that the findings of the trial court could be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons, which were not present in the instant case.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent wrongfully withheld the properties and records of the company in violation of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956? 2. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the respondent? 3. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the acquittal order of the trial court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The scope and applicability of Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the interpretation of its provisions were discussed. 2. The legal principles governing appeals against acquittal were examined, including the presumption of innocence, the benefit of doubt, and the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere with findings of fact made by trial courts. 3. The High Court's findings that the trial court's findings were based on a careful analysis of the evidence and did not suffer from any infirmity, and that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondent was in any manner entrusted with the properties or records in question, or that he was withholding the same, were upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal order of the trial court was upheld.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 21.04.2010 of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Judge, Delhi in Case No. 136/3 arising out of complaint u/s 630 of the Companies Act,1956, filed by the appellant against the respondent, by which respondent was acquitted.
2. The complainant case, as unfolded during trial is, that the complainant is a registered company dealing in iron and steel business. The present complaint u/s 630 of the Companies Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) is filed by Sh. Vinay Gupta, the AR of the company. The company had its offices at the following addresses viz.
(A) 459/60, Khari Baoli, Delhi;
(B) H-2/7, First Floor, Model Town, Delhi;
(C) Room no.524,”Giri Raj”, Sant Tukaram Street, Carnac Bundar, Mumbai, (Maharashtra);
(D) Room No.31, Vithal Wadi, Panchi Bhai Trust Building, 108/116, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai (Maharashtra);
(E) 1,Quinton Road, Lucknow (U.P.);
(F) 356, Jawahar Marg, Indore, (Madhya Pradesh);
(G) 28/29, Ministers Road, Secundarabad (Andhra Pradesh);
(H) Room No.225-77/79, N.S. Road, Kolkata (Regd. Office);
(I) 29, Stand Road, Calcutta (Regd. Office);
(J) Residential accommodation for Directors at Hyderabad at 8-2-686B/A, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (A.P.).
Besides the above mentioned properties, the complainant also had, Manufacturing unit/factory at A-3 & A-6, Co-operative Industrial Estate, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. It is claimed by the complainant that the respondent was appointed as an Executive Director of the company, on 03.09.1983, in addition to Sh. Harish Chander Gupta (father of the accused), vide a resolution passed in that regard. On the appointment of the respondent as an Executive Director, he was allegedly provided with furnished residential accommodation at Hyderabad and the respondent was made custodian of all the properties of the company, to look after the affairs of the company, at the head office of the company and its branches and factories. It is also claimed that the accused had in his possession the company’s statutory registers; share holder’s registers; minute’s book with regard to the board of Director’s meeting; annual general meeting with attendance registers; all account books (since inception of the company); audited balance sheets; company seal; original license pertaining to the factories of the company at Hyderabad, Indore and Vishakhapatnam; certificate of incorporation and, all other papers and records, files, documents, pertaining to affairs of the company. It is claimed that the accused forcibly removed and usurped those records from the company’s registered office at Calcutta, and the accused also forcibly and wrongfully took possession of the properties mentioned at SI. nos. 4, 5 & 6 in the complaint. It is also claimed that accused transferred the property no. A-6 at Co-operative Industrial Estate, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, without any authority, and in connivance with his father H.C.Gupta, who was also one of the directors of the company, as he was acting against the interest of the company and, the accused in an affidavit dated 12.9.1991 filed before the Company Law Board (CLB in short), admitted that he was not a director after July 1988 and, therefore, the accused was bound to return the properties of the company as well as the records of the company.
3. The respondent was summoned on this complaint u/s 630 of the Companies Act. Thereafter, in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C., a notice for the said offence was framed against the accused on 03.12.2001 for wrongful withholding of property nos: A-3 and A6, Co-operative Industrial Estate, Bala Nagar, Hyderabad including plant machinery and fixtures; premises nos.28 & 29, Ministers Road, Secundarabad; premises no. 459/60, Ground Floor, Khari Baoli, Delhi; premises no. H- 2/7, First Floor, Model Town, Delhi; Room No.31, Vithal wadi, Panchi Bhai Trust Building, 108/116, Kalba Devi Road, Mumbai, Room No, 524, Giriraj, Sant Tukaram Stree
