SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Jhk) 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Arun Kumar Singh @ Arun Singh - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opposite Party
Criminal Revision No. 1325 of 2016
Decided On : 07-02-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, APP
For the Complainant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

Headnote:

Indian Companies Act, 1956 - Section 630 - Penalty for wrongful withholding of property - Employee of a company - Convicted - Judgment passed in C.P. Case has been challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Appeal which has been dismissed by appellate court vide judgment was instituted by M/s Jharia Firebricks Private Ltd. against Ram Nagina Singh, Arun Singh and Surendra Singh. Ram Nagina Singh was an employee of complainant-company who was allotted Quarter for his occupation in course of his employment. Complainant has averred that he was trusted employee of company and he was requested to keep a watch on company’s other quarter near his Quarter. Accordingly, he was looking after company’s Quarter in which he entered possession during the period of lockout and in his connivance Arun Singh and Surendra Singh who are his nephew have also entered wrongful possession of Quarter - Held, Case sought to be argued on behalf of the complainant that Ram Nagina Singh connived with the petitioners and thus has committed an act in consequence of which the petitioners have obtained wrongful possession of Quarter No. A/22 has not been established during the trial. Both the witnesses examined by complainant have not claim their personal knowledge of such facts. Both courts below have committed a serious error in law on this count - Court find that complainant has failed to prove that petitioners have committed offence under section 630 of Companies Act and, accordingly, judgment and sentence, both, passed in C.P. Case are set-aside - Criminal Revision allowed

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners have been convicted in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008/ T.R. No. 901 of 2016 under section 630 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

2. By the order of sentence dated 05.04.2016, they have been sentenced to fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also directed them to vacate Quarter No. A/22, PO&PS-Dhansar, District-Dhanbad within 30 days.

3. In C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008, they were convicted along with Ram Nagina Singh who was an employee of M/s Jharia Firebricks & Pottery Works (P) Ltd.

4. The judgment passed in C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 has been challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2016 which has been dismissed by the appellate court vide judgment dated 18.07.2016.

5. C.P. Case No. 615 of 2008 was instituted by M/s Jharia Firebricks Private Ltd. against Ram Nagina Singh, Arun Singh and Surendra Singh. Ram Nagina Singh was an employee of the complainant-company who was allotted Quarter No. A/20 for his occupation in course of his employment. The complainant has averred that he was the trusted employee of the company and, therefore, he was requested to keep a watch on the company’s other quarter near his Quarter No. A/20. Accordingly, he was looking after the company’s Quarter No. A/22 in which he entered possession during the period of lockout and in his connivance Arun Singh and Surendra Singh who are his nephew have also entered wrongful possession of Quarter No. A/22. When inspite of requests Ram Nagina Singh did not hand over possession of Quarter No. A/20, Complaint Case being C.P. Case No. 944 of 2004 was instituted against him under section 630 of the Companies Act in respect of Quarter No. A/20. The present complaint case was instituted when the accused persons did not vacate Quarter No. A/22. During the trial the complainant has examined two witnesses; C.W.1 is the Director of the company and C.W.2 is an employee of the company. The letter dated 18.12.1974 written by the Director of the complainant-company to Ram Nagina Singh has been proved and marked through C.W.1 as exhibit-6.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class on the basis of the materials laid before him has held thus:

“14. It appears from the record that M/s Jharia Firebricks is a private limited company duly incorporated Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Ext.10). Complainant Ajay Agrawalla is one of the director of the company and he has authorized by the company for filing the case. Deceased Ram Nagina Singh was the employee of M/s Jharia Firebricks & Pottery Works (P) Ltd and accused Surendra Singh and Arun Singh are nephew of the Ram Nagina Singh. Complainant has filed document with regard to authorization (Ext.1). Quarter number A/22 is the property of the company (Ext.-4, 5, 5/1, 5/2, 9). Both accused persons are unlawfully retained the said quarter without allotment to him. Section 630 of the companies act also covered their legal heirs and representatives of the employee concerned, continuing in occupation of the property of the company after the death of the employee. Both have failed to show his bona-fide reason for such withholding. Admittedly both accused persons were not a employee of the Company nor the Company has authorized him to remain in possession of the same. According to the evidence, both accused persons come in possession in quarter number A/22 by the order of Ram Nagina Singh, who was uncle of both accused persons. After service of notice Ram Nagina Singh and his nephews never vacated the possession of the Company’s quarter and wrongful withholding of the property of the Company (Ext.-2, 3, 3/1, 7). The accused by having wrongfully withheld the possession of the Company’s quarter and not delivering the property to the Company, have committed an offence u/s 630 of the Company Act. Thus, complainant of this case has been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.”

7. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top