Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.
Anit Kumar Chakravarty - Appellant
Versus
Arun Krishna Rao Hazara - Respondent
Cr. Rev No. 393 of 1998
Decided On : 28-06-2024
COMPANIES ACT - WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING OF PROPERTY - Section 630 - The court discussed Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, which penalizes officers or employees of a company for wrongfully obtaining or withholding property. The court interpreted that the complaint can be filed by the company or any creditor or contributory. The court found that the petitioner was wrongfully occupying company property and upheld the conviction, emphasizing the sufficiency of the evidence presented and the authority of the complainant to file the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL), was convicted under Section 630 of the Companies Act for wrongfully occupying company quarters. The complaint was filed by a Deputy Chief Engineer of MCL after unauthorized persons broke into the quarters meant for doctors. The petitioner challenged the conviction, arguing the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a company.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction, finding that the petitioner was indeed occupying the quarters without authorization. It ruled that the complaint was valid as it was filed on behalf of MCL, and the evidence supported the prosecution's case regarding the wrongful occupation of property.
Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act was maintainable given the complainant's status and whether the petitioner was wrongfully occupying the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that Section 630 applies to employees wrongfully obtaining or withholding company property, and the complaint was valid as it was filed by an authorized representative of the company. The evidence sufficiently established the petitioner's wrongful occupation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.
JUDGMENT
Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.
The present criminal revision application has been filed under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The sole petitioner has put to challenge a judgment dated 12.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Appeal No.87/28 of 1996-97 whereby he has confirmed a judgment dated 09.10.1996 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jharsuguda in ICC Case No.54 of 1994 whereby the petitioner stood convicted of the offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and sentenced to a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a month. The petitioner was also directed by the trial Court to deliver the possession of the quarters of the Mahanadi Coal-fields Limited ('MCL' in short), which he was occupying wrongfully, to MCL within one month and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, in exercise of power under Section 630 (2) of the said Act.
2. Before I take note of the brief facts and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I consider it apposite to place on record the entire order-sheet right from the date of admission of the present criminal revision application, which is as under:-
Order
Order No. | Date of order | |
2 | 10.9.98 | Heard. Admit the revision. Call for the LCR and also issue notice to opp. Party. Requisites, as undertaken, be filed by Tuesday (15.9.98). Notice be made returnable within four weeks thereafter. |
3 | 10.9.98 | Misc. Case No.512/98 Heard. Issue notice as above, One set of process fee be accepted. In the interim, stay realisation of fine as per the impugned judgment i.e. in 1 C.C. Case No.54/94 of the court of the SDJM, Jharsuguda and the judgment of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Crl. Appeal No.87/28 of 1996-97. It is stated in the impugned judgment that the petitioner has to deliver possession of the quarters to General Manager, Mahanadi Coal Field I.B. Valley within one month from the date of judgment. The appellate court judgment was delivered on 12.8.98. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner is not in possession of that quarters and therefore he shall not be in a position to deliver the quarter. Because of such contention, it is directed that petitioner may not be asked to deliver possession of the quarter in terms of the impugned order. This order shall remain in force until further orders. An authenticated copy of this order be given to the petitioner on payment of Rs.50/- as court-fee. |
4 | 24.9.98 | Accept the requisites filed and proceed accordingly. |
5 | 10.4.2000 | Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for an adjournment for a week. Learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection. Hence list this case one week after. |
6 | 13.5.2002 | Misc. Case No.584/02 Heard. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner wants to obtain instruction and for that purpose prays for an adjournment till 17.5.2002. Hence list this case on 17.5.2002. |
7 | 17.5.2002 | Misc. Case No.584 of 2002 This application has been filed for modification of the Order no.3 dated 10.9.1998, in which, taking note of the contention of the revision-petitioner that he is no more in possession of the house in question, it was directed that petitioner shall not be asked to deliver possession of the quarter in termsof the impugned order of the Courts below. Mr. H. S. Misra, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner while not disputing that the petitioner is not in possession of the said quarter/house, states that the opposite party is not entitled to retain the possession of that quarter. Since the revisionpetitioner has not claimed possession or his locus standi in that respect, therefore, this application could have been disposed of today. Since learned counsel for the revision-petitioner wants to file a counter affidavit and prays for taking up the matter after Summer Vacation (today being the last working day before Summer Vacation), the prayer is allowed. List this Misc. Case and the Civil Revision on 18.6.2002. In the meantime there is no bar for the |
Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, allows for the prosecution of company employees for wrongful possession or withholding of company property, and a complaint can be validly filed by an authoriz....
Section 630 of the Companies Act applies to past employees and their heirs, allowing prosecution for wrongful withholding of company property.
The court affirmed that unlawful retention of company property post-employment is a criminal offense under Section 452 of the Companies Act, allowing for summary eviction procedures regardless of con....
Legal heirs of a deceased employee can be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Companies Act for wrongfully withholding company property, affirming the section's applicability.
A binding promise for property transfer cannot be inferred without a concluded contract; retention of company property post-employment is a criminal offense under Companies Act, 1956.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
