Continuing offence principle keeps wrongful retention complaints alive; company property protection law withstands constitutional challenge.

Wrongful retention of company premises by an ex-employee was treated as a continuing offence, so limitation under the Criminal Procedure Code did not run only from the date of retirement; section 472 applied and the complaints were not time-barred. Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was also upheld as a valid company-law measure within Parliament's competence, aimed at protecting company property and providing speedy relief against wrongful retention. The classification between employees entrusted with company premises and others was held to be based on a real distinction with a rational nexus to that object, and no violation of Articles 14 or 21 was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether complaints under section 630(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for wrongful withholding of company premises by ex-employees were barred by limitation under section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was beyond legislative competence or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether complaints under section 630(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 for wrongful withholding of company premises by ex-employees were barred by limitation under section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The withholding of company property did not end on the date of retirement. So long as the ex-employees continued to retain possession without returning the premises, the wrongful withholding persisted from day to day. In such a case, section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied and a fresh period of limitation began to run during the continuance of the offence. The complaints therefore could not be confined to the date of retirement alone, and the bar under section 468(2) was not attracted.

Conclusion: The complaints were not barred by limitation and the dismissal on that ground was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was beyond legislative competence or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 630 is a provision intended to protect company property and to provide speedy relief against wrongful retention by officers or employees. Its object is directly connected with the regulation of companies and the protection of their property, which falls within Parliament's competence under the Union List. The classification between company employees who are provided premises during service and employees of other entities is founded on a real and relevant distinction having nexus with the object of the provision. The section is therefore neither outside legislative competence nor arbitrary or discriminatory, and it does not violate the right to life under Article 21.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to section 630 failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision applications succeeded, the orders dismissing the complaints were set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Wrongful retention of company property by an employee or ex-employee is a continuing offence, and section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 is a valid regulatory provision within Parliament's competence, reasonably classified to protect company property.

---