Jaya Roy, J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant revision application against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2010 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 340 of 2009 by the Sessions Judge. Dhanbad affirming the judgment and order dated 17.11.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Dhanbad. in C.P. Case No. 1754 of 2005 being T.R. No. 662 of 2009 by which the petitioner above named has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and thereby the trial court imposed sentence of fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only and on default, simple imprisonment of 15 days. The trial court has further directed this petitioner to vacate the Company's Quarter within 30 days of the order.

3. The petitioner's case. in brief, is that the complainant/opposite party no. 2 (the Company) has filed a complaint petition stating therein that the petitioner being an employee of the complainant's Company, was allotted a Company Quarter B15 at Dhansar. It is further alleged that the petitioner left his job w.e.f. 20.2.2001 and the company asked him to collect his dues and vacate the quarter. But as he did not turn up and vacate the quarter, a legal notice was given to him. It is also alleged that the petitioner has withheld the quarter wrongfully.

4. The said complaint was filed by one Ajay Kumar Agarwal, one of the directors of the company. After cognizance was taken under Section 630 of the Companies Act, case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate. Dhanbad for trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution has adduced oral and document-tary evidence. The complainant namely Ajay Kumar Agarwal has examined himself as P.W.1 and produced the documentary evidence i.e. Employees' pension scheme chart evidence as Ext. -1, allotment letter for electric line as Ext.-2, application of Jagdish Yadav as Ext.-3, Letter dated 2.5.2003 as Ext•.-4. Advocate notice as Ext.-5, A.D. as Ext.-6, Registry receipt as Ext.-7 and reply of the notice as Ext.-8. The defence is generally denial and the petitioner has also examined himself as D.W. 1 and another witness Babulal Bhuiya as D.W.2. He has also filed a documentary evidence i.e. E.S.1. Card as Exhibit-A and the order of Assistant Labour Commissioner as Exhibit-B.

5. Mr. S.K. Sinha. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised only two points before this Court:-

(i) Whether in absence of any authorization by the Board of Directors the complaint could have been filed by the company through its Director Sri Ajay Agarwal and if not whether the proceedings are liable to be vitiated on that account?

(ii) Whether the petitioner/accused can be evicted from the premises without payment of his dues?

6. Mr. S.K. Sinha learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the complainant Mr. Ajay Agarwal is one of the Directors of the Company and he filed a complaint petition. But an individual director has no power to act on behalf of the company. Therefore, he has no locus standi to launch prosecution on behalf of the company against the petitioner.

In this regard, he has cited a judgment reported in (2007)4 Crimes page 154 (Bom.) where the Hon'ble High Court has held in para-21-Companies Act-Director's Power to act on behalf of Company- .

"21. A Director as an Individual Director, has no power to act on behalf of the Company. He is only one of a body of Directors. Called the Board of Directors and alone he has no power except such as may be delegated to him by the Board of Directors or-driven to him by the articles of association of a Company......"

7. Regarding his second point, Mr. S.K. Sinha learned counsel has submitted that the company has not paid his dues, till date, therefore, he cannot be evicted from his quarter. In this regard, he has also cited the following decisions of this Court:-

(i) 20