Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a complaint under section 630 of the Companies Act was barred by limitation on the ground that the accused had ceased to be a director long before the complaint and the offence was not a continuing one.
Analysis: Section 630 is a beneficent but penal provision enacted to enable a company to recover its property from an officer or employee who wrongfully withholds possession. The provision applies both where an officer or employee wrongfully withholds company property during employment and where possession is continued after termination of employment. The wrongful withholding continues so long as the property is retained, and the offence therefore does not become time-barred merely because the initial termination of office or employment occurred earlier. In this context, the limitation argument under section 468(2)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was not accepted.
Conclusion: The complaint was held not to be barred by limitation, as the offence under section 630 is a continuing offence while withholding of the company property continues.
Final Conclusion: The quashing petition was rejected and the criminal complaint was permitted to proceed.
Ratio Decidendi: Wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 of the Companies Act is a continuing offence that endures for as long as possession is retained after termination of employment or office.