Section 630 conviction fails where civil findings establish independent tenancy, not employment-based possession of company premises.

A conviction under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 cannot stand unless the accused's possession of company property is attributable to employment, because an employer-employee or licensee relationship is a condition precedent. The civil court had finally found that the appellant occupied the premises as an independent tenant under the landlords, not under any leave-and-license arrangement and not in lieu of service. Those findings bound the parties unless reversed in appeal, so the criminal finding of wrongful withholding of company property could not be sustained. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and direction for restitution under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 were sustainable in view of the civil court's finding that the appellant occupied the premises as an independent tenant and not by reason of employment.

Analysis: Section 630 applies where a company employee or former employee wrongfully withholds company property obtained by virtue of employment, and the existence of the employer-employee relationship is a condition precedent. The civil court, after trial, found that the company had failed to prove tenancy in its favour, had failed to prove any leave-and-license arrangement or that the premises were given in lieu of service, and accepted the appellant's case of independent tenancy under the landlords. Those findings, unless and until reversed in appeal, bind the parties. In that situation, the earlier criminal findings could not stand on the footing that the appellant was in wrongful possession of company property.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 cannot be sustained where the civil court has finally found that the accused is in possession as an independent tenant and not as an employee or licensee of the company.

---