Wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 can stand despite a later civil suit on directorship status.

Wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was found to be made out where company records and a motorcycle, both entrusted to the petitioner, were retained after his entitlement ended. The High Court held that a later civil suit on whether he remained a director did not displace the criminal findings, because it was instituted after the criminal case had substantially progressed and the civil court was not seized of the issue when the Magistrate decided it. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings merely because a civil dispute is asserted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction to set aside the conviction for wrongful withholding of company property under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 on the footing that he had not ceased to be a director and that a civil suit on that question was pending.

Analysis: Liability under section 630 arises where an officer or employee wrongfully withholds company property after his entitlement to retain it has ended. The materials showed that the records and motorcycle belonged to the company and had been entrusted to the petitioner. The Court held that the petitioner's later civil suit did not displace the criminal findings, because the suit was filed after the criminal proceedings had substantially progressed and the Civil Court was not in seisin of the issue when the Magistrate decided the case. Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to cases of abuse of process and cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings merely because a civil dispute is asserted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief; the conviction and concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

---