IMPORTANT POINT
The Special Court retains jurisdiction to try offences under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 for actions occurring before the 2020 amendment, which excluded such offences from its jurisdiction.

ORDER :

K. Babu, J.

This batch of revision petitions invokes a common question of law. The challenge in these Crl.R.Ps is to the common order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Court—VII, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P. No.5426/2023 in S.C No.248/2021 and connected cases.

2. The revision petitioner is Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Company Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the company'), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

3. The company filed eight complaints alleging offence under Section 452 of the Companies Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, the Special Court constituted as provided in Section 435 of the Act. In the complaint, essentially, the company alleged that the accused wrongfully obtained possession of the quarters allotted to them while serving in the company. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused/the party respondents. They appeared in response to the summons. The Special Court proceeded with the trial. The company filed petitions under Section 452(2) of the Act seeking direction to the accused to deliver up the buildings.

4. The accused raised a contention that the offence alleged is not punishable with imprisonment of two years or more, and hence, the Special Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the limitations contained in sub-section (1) of Section 435 of the Act. The Special Court heard both sides on the jurisdictional question and held that it has no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 452 of the Act. The Special Court further held that since an incompetent court took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial, it has no authority to return the complaint. The Special Judge, therefore, addressed the High Court, seeking direction regarding the further course to be adopted.

The question arises for consideration.

5. Has not the Special Court jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 452 of the Act committed prior to the amendment in Section 435 of the Act by Act 29 of 2020?

6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents/the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The offence alleged occurred prior to 2019. The company filed the complaints in 2019.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that until 22.01.2021, when the amendments by Act 29 of 2020 were incorporated in Section 435 of the Act, the Special Court had jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 452 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the substantive sentence provided for an offence under Section 452(2) is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Therefore, in view of the statutory provision that existed before the amendment as per Act 29 of 2020, which came into force on 22.01.2021, the Special Court has jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 452 of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the reasoning applied by the Special Court that the substantive sentence provided for the offence under Section 452 of the Act is only a fine and imprisonment provided in sub-section (2) of Section 452 of the Act is only a default sentence cannot be sustained.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain v. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd., [(1995) 3 SCC 732], Lalita Jalan v. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd., [(2003) 6 SCC 107] and Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal [(2020) 18 SCC 568] in support of his contentions.

10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the company should have filed the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class concerned. It is submitted that the view adopted by the Special Court is to be upheld. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the practice being followed in the Courts all over India is that offence under Section 452 of the Act