1985 (7) TMI 378 - HC - Indian Laws

Court discharges accused in Companies Act case, finding no entrustment or charge defect.

Amritlal Chum Versus Devi Ranjan Jha and Ors.

Amritlal Chum Versus Devi Ranjan Jha and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the accused committed an offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act.2. Whether the accused committed an offence u/s 406 IPC.3. Whether the framing of charge u/s 403 IPC was justified.Summary:Issue 1: Offence u/s 630 of the Companies ActThe complainant company alleged that the accused wrongfully retained possession of a furnished flat after his employment ended, thus committing an offence u/s 630 of the Companies Act. The Magistrate concluded that the cognizance of the offence was barred by limitation. The High Court held that Sections 630 applies only to existing officers and employees of a company, not former employees. The court emphasized that the language of the section and the legislative intent did not support its application to past employees. Therefore, the Magistrate was correct in not framing a charge u/s 630.Issue 2: Offence u/s 406 IPCThe essence of an offence u/s 406 IPC is entrustment. The court found no evidence or allegations in the complaint or witness depositions indicating that any property was entrusted to the accused. The court noted that the accused's possession of the flat and furniture was a condition of his service, and failure to return them constituted a breach of contract, not a criminal offence. Thus, the Magistrate was justified in not framing a charge u/s 406 IPC.Issue 3: Framing of Charge u/s 403 IPCThe Magistrate framed a charge u/s 403 IPC, but the High Court identified a defect in the charge as it did not specify the property allegedly misappropriated. The court noted that the accused's continued possession of the flat and furniture did not amount to dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his own use. The court also clarified that immovable property cannot be subject to an offence u/s 403 IPC. Consequently, the High Court concluded that there were no materials for framing a charge u/s 403 IPC and the accused should have been discharged.Conclusion:The revision application by the complainant (Criminal Revision No. 222 of 1985) was dismissed, and the revision application by the accused (Criminal Revision No. 448 of 1985) was allowed, resulting in the discharge of the accused.