Bombay High Court
Ms. Komal Manu Sahani vs Pure Drinks Ltd on 14 June, 2013
Author: R.P. Sondurbaldota
Bench: R.P. Sondurbaldota
WP-4316-12.sxw
``Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4316 OF 2012
Ms. Komal Manu Sahani, ]
Age : 55 Years, Indian Inhabitant, ]
R/at Campa Cola Compound, ]
1st Floor, 9, B.G. Kher Road, ]
Acharya Atre Chowk, Worli Naka, ]
Mumbai - 400 018. ] ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Pure Drinks Ltd., ]
A Company duly registered under
ig ]
the Companies Act, 1956, ]
having registered office at ]
60 Yadvidra Colony, ]
The Mall Patiala, Punjab and Factory ]
at 9 B.G. Kher Road, Acharya Atre ]
Chowk, Worli Naka, Mumbai - 400 018. ]
Through its Director Shri. Ajit Singh, ]
R/o. 9 Friend Colony, ]
New Delhi - 110 065. ]
]
2. State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondents
Mr. A.A. Desai , Sr. Counsel, a/w. Mr. Girish Kulkarni,
i/by Mr. M.G. Shukla for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vishwas Gupte a/w. Mr. Deepak Chitnis, i/by M/s. Deepak
Chitnis Chiparikar & Co., for Respondent No.1.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, A.P.P., for Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J.
RESERVED ON TH MARCH, 2013
: 7 .
TH JUNE, 2013
PRONOUNCED ON : 14 .
# 1/22 #
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:44 :::
WP-4316-12.sxw
JUDGMENT :
1. The short question that arises for consideration of the Court in this Petition is "whether on the death of accused, the proceedings under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 abate, or, the same can be continued by substituting him with his heirs ?"
2. The brief facts leading to the question are that the Petitioner is the daughter of one Mrs. Ranjit Charles Singh, the accused in C.C. No.353/SS/2011 filed by Respondent No.1/company under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, (for short "the Act"), for continued unauthorized occupation of the residential premises owned by the company. The original accused expired on 30 th January, 2012, after issuance of process by the Court against her. A few days prior to her death, the petitioner herein, her married daughter, came to the disputed premises for the purpose of looking after her. The petitioner, however, continued to occupy the premises even after the death of the mother.
Therefore, on 2nd May, 2012, the company filed application at Exhibit-3 to bring the petitioner on record as the accused in the case. That application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 5 th November, 2012, which order is under challenge in the present Petition.
# 2/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:44 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
3. The order has been impugned essentially on three grounds. Firstly, that the application for substitution of the original accused filed by the company was not maintainable since there is no provision made in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, ("Cr.P.C." for short), or, the Companies Act, 1956, ("the Act" for short), for substitution of an accused. Secondly, that the proceedings based on the facts to prosecute the original accused cannot be used to prosecute the substituted accused i.e. the petitioner.
And, thirdly, that, if at all anything, the company may file an independent complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 630 of the Act. The company, on the other hand, seeks to support the impugned order contending that the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act are not criminal proceedings in the strict sense of the term. On a broader interpretation placed on the provision, the same must be treated as quasi criminal proceedings and the interest of justice as well as the object of the provision can be served only by substitution of the original accused by the petitioner.
4. Mr. A.A. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings u/s. 630 of the Act are criminal proceedings triable by a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., which does not provide for substitution of an accused. The only provision # 3/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:44 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw in Cr.P.C. under which there can be addition of a person as an accused to the pending criminal proceedings is Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. In the facts of the case, there can be no application of Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the learned Magistrate had no powers to substitute the original accused by the petitioner. He argues that in view of Chapter VI Para 84 of the Criminal Manual, on the death of an accused during pendency of the trial, it was imperative for the Magistrate to record the finding that the accused is dead, to report the same and send the papers to the record room. In other words, on the death of the accused, the criminal proceedings ought to have been disposed off as having been abated.
5. Mr. Desai relies upon decision of the Apex Court in Vishwa Mitter of M/s. Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Dalhouse Road, Pathankot V/s.
O.P. Poddar & Ors., reported in (1983) 4 SCC 701, to submit that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act in the absence of any provision made therein for the manner or the place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with the offence. There can be no dispute about the proposition of law advanced by Mr. Desai. Besides, it is not the case of the company that provisions of Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the present proceedings.
# 4/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
6. Mr. V.C. Gupte, the learned Counsel appearing for the company, submits per contra that the proceedings u/s. 630 of the Act are distinctively different from the regular criminal proceedings and that this distinction has been recognized by the Apex Court, keeping in view the object of Section 630 of the Act, the object being to provide a summary procedure for retrieving the property belonging to the company.
Therefore, expansive interpretation is required to be given to the provision, as against the strict interpretation of penal provisions.
7. The nature of the proceedings u/s. 630 of the Act and the interpretative aspect of the provision of Section 630 have been subject matter of several decisions of the Apex Court as also this Court. Those decisions relied upon by Mr. Gupte are as follows :
(i) Baldev Krishna Sahi Vs. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1987) 4 SCC 361.
(ii) Atul Mathur Vs. Atul Kalra & Anr., reported in (1989) 4 SCC 514.
(iii) Abdul Quayaum Ansari Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 1990 (2) Bom.C.R. 437.
(iv) Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. Vs. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath & Ors., along with connected matters, reported in (1991) 2 SCC 141. # 5/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
(v) Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain (Smt.) Vs. Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. & Ors., along with connected matter, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 732.
(vi) Lalita Jalan & Anr. Vs. Bombay Gas Co. Ltd.
& Ors., reported in AIR 2003 SC 3157.
8. Before looking into the judicial pronouncements, it would be convenient to take notice of the provision of Section 630 of the Act, which reads as under :-
"630. Penalty for wrongful withholding of-property.
(1) If any officer or employee of a company-
(a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company;
or
(b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to [ten thousand rupees].
(2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years."
# 6/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
9. The first occasion for interpretation of the above provision arose in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case (supra) for considering the question whether the words "officer" or "employee" existing in sub-section (1) should be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and employees of the Company but also to include the past officers and employees of the Company. The Apex Court held that the provision encompasses present as well as past officers of the company. It observed that a narrow construction should not be placed upon sub-section (1) since it would defeat the very purpose and the object with which it has been introduced.
The provision should be so construed as to make it effective and operative. The relevant para 7 of the Judgment reads as follows :-
"7. The beneficent provision contained in Section 630 no doubt penal, has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company (a) where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtains possession of property of the company, or (b) where having been placed in possession of any such property during the course of his employment, wrongfully withholds possession of it after the termination of his employment. It is the duty of the Court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy."
[Emphasis supplied] # 7/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
10. The above view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Atul Mathur's case (supra) observing that the purpose of enacting Section 630 of the Act is to provide speedy relief to a Company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or ex-
employee.
11. The nature of proceedings under Section 630 of the Act once again came under the scrutiny of the Apex Court in Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd.'s case (supra) wherein the question arising for consideration was whether the offence under the Section is a continuing offence for the purpose of limitation. The Apex Court after considering its decisions in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case (supra) and in the case of Amritlal Chang Vs. D.P. Datta Roy, reported in 1988 (2) SCC 269, held that the offence under the Section continues until the property so obtained or withheld is delivered or refunded to the Company. The relevant observations of the Apex Court at para 26 of the decision read as under :-
"26. ............................................. we are of the view that the offence under this section is not such as can be said to have consummated once for all. Wrongful withholding, or wrongfully obtaining possession and wrongful application of the company's property, that is, for purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles of the company and authorised by the Companies Act, cannot be said to be terminated by a single act or fact but would # 8/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw subsist for the period until the property in the offender's possession is delivered up or refunded. It is an offence committed over a span of time and the last act of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation and need be alleged. The offence consists of a course of conduct arising from a singleness of thought, purpose of refusal to deliver up or refund which may be deemed a single impulse. Considered from another angle, it consists of a continuous series of acts which endures after the period of consummation on refusal to deliver up or refund the property. It is not an instantaneous offence and limitation begins with the cessation of the criminal act, i.e. with the delivering up or refund of the property. It will be a recurring or continuing offence until the wrongful possession, wrongful withholding or wrongful application is vacated or put an end to.
The offence continues until the property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly mis- applied is delivered up or refunded to the company. ....................................."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. In Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain's case (supra) the question arising for consideration of the Apex Court was whether legal heirs and representatives of the employee or the officer concerned continuing in occupation of the property of the Company after the death of the employee or the officer could be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act.
The Apex Court answered the question in the affirmative. The complaint in that case had been filed against the legal heirs of the employee who had died while in service. The property held by him as an employee of the Company continued to be in possession of his legal heirs. The Apex # 9/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:45 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw Court while deciding the question noticed all the abovecited decisions. It also noted the consistent view taken by it that the provisions of Section 630 of the Act must be given purposive and wider interpretation and not a restrictive interpretation. The reasons set out in the Judgment in support of its decision at paras 14, 15, 17 and 18 read as follows :-
"14. Thus, inescapably it follows that the capacity, right to possession and the duration of occupation are all features, which are integrally blended with the employment, and the capacity and the corresponding rights are extinguished with the cessation of employment and an obligation arises to handover the allotted property back to the company. Where the property of the company is held back whether by the employee, past employee or any one claiming under them, the retained possession would amount to wrongful withholding of the property of the company, actionable under Section 630 of the Act. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that since the provisions of Section 630 of the Act are penal in nature the same must be strictly construed and, the parties which have not been expressly included by the legislature in Section 630(1) of the Act, cannot by any interpretative extension be included in the said provision, ignores the situation that by a deeming fiction, the legal representatives or heirs of a past employee or officer, in occupation of the property of the company, would continue to enjoy the personality and status of the employee or the officer only.
.................................................................................
and .......................................... the legal representatives or the heirs of the deceased employee or officer # 10/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:46 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 630 of the Act. To exclude them, by giving a restrictive interpretation to the provisions would defeat the very object of the provision which declares the wrongful withholding of the property of the company to be an offence. It is immaterial whether the wrongful withholding is done by the employee or the officer or the past employee or the past officer or the heirs of the deceased employee or the officer or anyone claiming their right of occupancy under such an employee or an officer. It cannot be ignored that the legal heirs or representatives in possession of the property had acquired the right of occupancy in the property of the company, by virtue of being family members of the employee or the officer during the employment of the officer or the employee and not on any independent account. They, therefore, derive their colour and content from the employee or the officer only and have no independent or personal right to hold on to the property of the company. Once the right of the employee or the officer to retain the possession of the property, either on account of termination of services, retirement, resignation or death, gets extinguished, they (persons in occupation) are under an obligation to return the property back to the company and on their failure to do so, they render themselves liable to be dealt with under Section 630 of the Act for retrieval of the possession of the property.
[Emphasis supplied]
15. Even though Section 630 of the Act falls in Part XIII of the Companies Act and provides for penal consequences for wrongful withholding of the property of the company, the provisions strictly speaking are not penal in the sense as understood, under the penal law. The provisions are quasi- criminal. They have been enacted with the main object of providing speedy relief to a company # 11/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:46 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withhold by an employee or officer or an ex-employee or officer or anyone claiming under them. In our opinion, a proper construction of the Section would be that the term "officer or employee" of a company in Section 630 of the Act would by a deeming fiction include the legal heirs and representatives of the employee or the officer concerned continuing in occupation of the property of the company after the death of the employee or the officer.
17. The object of the Companies Act inter alia is to regulate the affairs of the companies including the control of the management and protection of the property of the company. The object of Section 630 of the Act has, thus, a direct nexus with the object of the Act. It is precisely for this reason that in Gokak Patel Volkart's case this Court held the offence under Section 630 of the Act to be "a continuing offence".
18. ........................................ To hold that the "legal heirs" would not be covered by the provisions of Section 630 of the Act would be unrealistic and illogical. It would defeat the "beneficent" provision and ignore, the factual realities that the legal heirs or family members who are continuing in possession of the allotted property, had obtained the right of occupancy with the employee concerned in the property of the employer only by virtue of their relationship with the employee/officer and had not obtained or acquired the right to possession of the property in any other capacity, status or right. The legislature, which is supposed to know and appreciate the needs of the people, by enacting Section 630 of the Act manifested that it was conscious of the position that today in the corporate sector - private or public # 12/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:46 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw enterprise - the employees/officers are often provided residential accommodation by the employer for the 'use and occupation' of the concerned employee during the course of his employment. More often than not, it is a part of the service conditions of the employee that the employer shall provide him residential accommodation during the course of his employment. If an employee or a past employee or anyone claiming the right of occupancy under them, were to continue to 'hold' the property belonging to the company, after the right to be in occupation has ceased for one reason or the other, it would not only create difficulties for the company, which shall not be able to allot that property to its other employees, but would also cause hardship for the employee awaiting allotment and defeat the intention of the legislature. The courts are therefore obliged to place a broader, liberal and purposeful construction on the provisions of Section 630 of the Act in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation and construe it in a wider sense to effectuate the intendment of the provision.
..............................................
[Emphasis supplied]."
13. The latest decision of the Apex Court on the provision of Section 630 of the Act is of Lalita Jalan's case (supra). In that case the Company had sought to prosecute the son, daughter-in-law and grand-son of its deceased employee under Section 630 of the Act. The daughter-in-law and grand-son had moved an application for recall of the process issued against them and for their discharge contending that the proceedings could not be maintained against them since they were neither the # 13/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:46 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw employees of the Company nor the heirs of the employee. So, the question arising for consideration of the Apex Court was whether the Appellants before it, not having vacated the flat after the death of the Company's employee to whom it was allotted, come within the ambit of Section 630 of the Act. The Apex Court noticed all its earlier decisions from Baldev Krishna Sahi's case (supra) to Abhilash Vinodkumar Jain's case (supra) to reiterate its view that Section 630 of the Act has to be given purposive and wider interpretation and not a restrictive interpretation and held that if a former employee is prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act on account of the fact that he has not vacated the premises even after termination of his employment, in normal circumstances, it may not be proper to prosecute his wife and dependent children also as they are bound to stay with him in the same premises.
However, the position will be different where the former employee is himself not in occupation of the premises either on account of the fact that he is dead or he is living elsewhere. In such cases all those who have come in possession of the premises with the express or implied consent of the employee and have not vacated the premises would be withholding the delivery of the property to the Company and, therefore, liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act. This will include anyone else who has been inducted in possession of the property by such persons who # 14/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:46 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw continue to withhold possession of the premises. The Apex Court further distinguished the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act from the proceedings under the Indian Penal Code and other Penal Statutes by observing para 17 as under :-
"17. The purpose of criminal justice is to award punishment. It is a method of protecting society by reducing the occurrence of criminal behaviour. It also acts as a deterrent. Where the punishment is disabling or preventive, its aim is to prevent a repetition of the offence by rendering the offender incapable of its commission. The Companies Act is entirely different from those statutes which basically deal with offences and punishment like Indian Penal Code. Terrorist and disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, etc. It makes provision for incorporation of the companies, its share capital and debentures, management and administration, allotment of shares and debentures, constitution of Board of Directors, prevention of oppression and mismanagement, winding-up of the company, etc. The heading of Part XIII of the Companies Act is "GENERAL" and a few provisions therein, namely, Sections 628 to 631 create offences and also prescribe penalty for the same. Having regard to the purpose for which Section 630 has been enacted viz. to retrieve the property of the company and the salient features of the statute (Companies Act) it is not possible to hold it as a penal provision as the normal attributes of crime and punishment are not present here. It cannot be said to be an offence against the society at large nor the object of awarding sentence is preventive or reformative. In such circumstances the principle of interpretation relating to criminal statutes that the same should be strictly construed will not be applicable."
[Emphasis supplied] # 15/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:47 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
14. To sum up the law stated in various judicial pronouncements noted above, the provision of Section 630 of the Act is a beneficient provision enacted by the Legislature with a specific purpose. The purpose of declaring the wrongful withholding of the property of the company to be an offence is to provide speedy and summary procedure for retrieval of the company's property. The provision has been made by the Legislature keeping in view the present position in the corporate sector - private or public enterprise - that the employee or officer is often provided residential accommodation for use and occupation during the course of his employment. More often than not, it is a part of service conditions of the employee that the employer shall provide him residential accommodation during the course of his employment. Therefore, if such employee were to continue to hold the property belonging to the company after his right to be in occupation has been ceased for one reason or the other, it would create difficulties for the company in allotting the property to its other employees. It would also cause hardship for the employees awaiting allotment. Therefore, the Courts are obliged to place a broader, liberal and purposeful construction on the provision of Section 630 of the Act in furtherance of the object and purpose of the Legislation and construe it in a wider sense to effectuate the intendment # 16/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:47 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw of the provision. A restrictive interpretation of the provision would defeat the object of the provision. Though the provision is penal in the nature, the normal attributes of crime and punishment are not present therein. In the circumstances, the principle of interpretation relating to Criminal Statutes that the same should be strictly construed will not be applicable to the provision. It takes into its fold not just the present employees of the company but also its past employees, the legal heirs or family members, who are continuing in possession of the property of the company by virtue of their relationship with the employee and not on any independent account and any person claiming the right of occupancy under an employee. The offence under Section 630 of the Act is a continuing offence. The offence continues until the property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied is delivered up or refunded to the company.
15. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner herein, being the legal heir of the deceased past employee of the company and withholding the property of the company would undoubtedly come within the ambit of Section 630 of the Act. The question that remains to be considered is whether she can be proceeded against through the pending proceedings or must be proceeded against by independent # 17/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:47 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw proceedings. Although the question to be considered would not strictly relate to interpretation of Section 630 of the Act, it has to be decided in the context of the provision. It has already been noted above that it is the duty of the Court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the object and purpose of the Legislation of providing speedy and summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company. The Court must endeavour to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
16. Mr. Desai, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has expressed serious concern about adopting a procedure which is alien to Cr.P.C. He apprehends that any departure from the procedure prescribed in Cr.P.C., even by way of exception for specific type of proceedings, is bound to create difficulties for criminal justice administration system. It would encourage filing of similar applications for various other purposes in various types of proceedings. By way of an example, he refers to prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
In my considered opinion, the apprehension expressed need not deter the Court in considering the question on merit. A bare future possibility of the inroad made into the procedure for special cases, being used for other proceedings as well can never be a ground or consideration, for # 18/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:47 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw deciding the question. Any similar application filed in future in other proceedings will have to be attended to as and when filed, in accordance with the law and the fact situation at the relevant time. The law is never static. It is continuously evolving to meet the fact situations.
17. Mr. Desai next submits that an application of the nature filed by the company would amount to amendment of the criminal complaint, which is not permissible under Cr.P.C. He refers to the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court in Behram S. Doctor V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr., reported in 2003 (4) MAH.L.J. 505, in this connection. The proceedings before the learned Single Judge in the decision cited arose out of complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which an application had been filed, after about four years, to amend the complaint in order to correct name of the accused from Shri. B.S. Dastoor to Behram S. Doctor. The learned Magistrate had allowed the application. While setting aside that order, this Court observed as under :-
"13. Firstly, there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code by which a complainant can make a prayer to the Magistrate for permitting him to amend the complaint by changing the name of the accused and substituting one accused by another and alleging that the substituted accused had committed the alleged offence. Criminal Courts are bound by law # 19/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:47 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw and they are not Courts of equity. The law has provided some discretion to them and that is in respect of inflicting punishment; even that discretion is also regulated by law. Therefore, the trial Court had no jurisdiction at all and it was not empowered to permit the respondent no.2 to amend the said complaint by deleting the name of Mr. Dastoor and substituting it by putting the name of the present petitioner Mr. Doctor. ................................"
18. The decision cited will have to be distinguished on facts. The amendment sought in that case amounted to completely replacing the original accused on the ground that he had not been correctly described.
Stated differently the complaint had been filed against a wrong person, one B.S. Dastoor, when the correct accused was one Behram S. Doctor.
Such mistake in filing the complaint could not have been corrected by way of amendment of the complaint, which is not recognized by Cr.P.C. A similar application filed in the present proceedings also would not be maintainable. However, the application filed herein has been in completely different set of circumstances. There is neither any doubt nor question about the original accused being the person liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Act. There is also no dispute about the petitioner herein being the legal heir of the original accused and being in possession of the property of the company. It is also seen that the offence under Section 630 of the Act is a continuing offence and that it # 20/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:48 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw continues to be an offence until delivery of the property to the company.
The petitioner had come in possession of the property during the lifetime of the original accused. She has continued her occupation even after the death of the original accused and not delivered the property to the company. She has, thus, wrongfully withheld it during the course of the continuing offence. In such circumstances, keeping in view the object and purpose of Section 630 of the Act, an exception will have to be made as regards the proceedings under Section 630 of the Act. Otherwise the object and purpose of the provision would get defeated. Besides in the facts of the case bringing the petitioner on record will not amount to amendment of the complaint.
19. Mr. Gupte on the other hand expresses a concern that, considering the fact that the petitioner is not the only legal heir of the original accused, if the substitution is denied and the company is compelled to file independent proceedings against the petitioner, there is every likelihood that the other heirs of the original accused will occupy the premises turn by turn and permanently frustrate the prosecution under Section 630 of the Act. The fact that there are other heirs of the original accused though not presently in possession of the property is not in dispute.
# 21/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:48 ::: WP-4316-12.sxw
20. The other ground of objection of the petitioner is use of the facts alleged in the complaint, as filed against the original accused, to prosecute the petitioner herein. Mr. Desai points out that the complaint does not contain any allegations against the petitioner herein. Besides, without a further statement recorded in verification under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein cannot be proceeded with. He submits that compliance with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory and relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. V/s. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., reported in 2008 (8) SCC 205, in support. This argument is not relevant for deciding maintainability of the application for substitution filed by the company. It would be relevant at the later stage.
21. Thus for the reasons stated above, I hold that the application for substitution filed by the company is maintainable and that there is no need to drive the company to separate proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) # 22/22 # ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 20:49:48 :::