Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On the above complaint being filed, the accused was summoned, and thereafter a notice for the offence of section 630 of The Companies Act 1956, was served upon the accused in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C to which the accused claimed trial.

5. In support of its case, complainant examined only one witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, who deposed that he is power of attorney holder of the complainant company and duly authorised to sign, verify the complaint and to depose in the present case vide resolution Ex. PW 1/1 and power of attorney Ex. PW1/2. He also proved the certificate of incorporation Ex. PW1/3 and also deposed that the accused was allotted the said quarter vide allotment letter Ex. PW1/5 after he joined the services M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning JUDGMENT/Texmaco Vs. Hundi Lal/ CASE NO.322/3/U.S.630 of Companies Act, 1956//DATED 14.1.2010/Convicted/Page 5 of and Weaving Mills Ltd. He also proved order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Company Petition No.59/1982 dated 03.1.1983 vide which scheme of arrangement, all the rights, titles, interest, properties, assets and liabilities as well as the employees of the said mill unit of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., became that of the complainant company. He further deposed that the accused ceased to be the employee of complainant company w.e.f.30.11.1996. He also deposed that the accused was liable to vacate the quarter but he failed to do so even after request made on 10.07.2003. Despite cross examination of PW1 nothing material could be brought out on record in order to impeach the credit worthiness or trust worthiness of this witness.

(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."

8. It is settled law that the scope of inquiry in a proceedings u/s 630 is extremely restricted in law and the case is to be confined within those narrow ambit's without permitting any delay. The provision contained in Section 630 has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company. 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. In Atul Mathur v. Atul Kalra and another, 1989 (4) SCC 514, it was held that the purpose of enacting Section 630 is to provide speedy relief to a company when its property is wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld by an employee or an ex­employee. JUDGMENT/Texmaco Vs. Hundi Lal/ CASE NO.322/3/U.S.630 of Companies Act, 1956//DATED 14.1.2010/Convicted/Page 8 of

9. IN, 1993 CRI. L. J. 2791 "K. G. K. Nair v. P. C. Juneja"

BOMBAY HIGH COURT It is held that, " The provisions of S. 630 are intended to provide speedy and efficacious redress in cases where company's property is wrongfully withheld ............... ...........................................
(b) ........................ that the scope of the enquiry in a proceeding under Section 630 is extremely restricted in law and, consequently, the parties be confined within those narrow ambits without being permitted to dilate or protract the proceeding through extraneous avenues. "

18. It is next argued that even if the accused is taken to be a licensee JUDGMENT/Texmaco Vs. Hundi Lal/ CASE NO.322/3/U.S.630 of Companies Act, 1956//DATED 14.1.2010/Convicted/Page of still no notice of termination has been given to him and therefore he cannot be prosecuted.

Again this contention is misfounded. Under section 630 of The Companies Act 1956 there is no requirement of law to give any notice of termination of licence or even any notice separately regarding termination of the services. The fact that the property is given to an employee by virtue of his being in employment of a company which he wrongfully withholds is sufficient to bring the case within the ambit of section 630 of The Companies Act 1956.