Section 630 companies law is limited to current employees; absence of entrustment and misappropriation defeats IPC charges.

Section 630 of the Companies Act was construed as confined to existing officers or employees, so it does not extend to a former employee charged with wrongful retention of company property. The provision's wording and scheme support that limited application, while conduct by a past employee may still be addressed under general penal law where facts justify it. For Section 406 IPC, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment, which was not shown for the furniture, fixtures or flat. For Section 403 IPC, dishonest misappropriation of movable property was also not established, and an immovable flat cannot be the subject of that offence. The materials therefore did not support charges under Sections 406 or 403 IPC.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 630 of the Companies Act applied to a former officer or employee of the company so as to sustain a charge for wrongful retention of company property. (ii) Whether the materials disclosed offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether Section 630 of the Companies Act applied to a former officer or employee of the company so as to sustain a charge for wrongful retention of company property.

Analysis: The section was construed on its plain wording as directed against an existing officer or employee. The reference in the provision to delivery up or refund by such officer or employee, and the scheme of the remedy, indicated that the legislative focus was on persons still holding that status. The Court also noted that where the legislature intended to include former officers or employees, it did so expressly in other provisions, and that wrongful retention by a past employee could be dealt with under the general penal law where the facts justified it.

Conclusion: Section 630 of the Companies Act did not apply to the accused as a former employee, and the refusal to frame a charge under that provision was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials disclosed offences under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: For Section 406, entrustment was essential, but neither the complaint nor the evidence showed that any furniture, fixture, or flat was entrusted to the accused in the legal sense required for criminal breach of trust. The dispute, at its highest, amounted to failure to vacate premises and return articles, which was a contractual or civil dispute. For Section 403, the allegation did not show dishonest misappropriation or conversion of movable property to the accused's own use. The flat itself was immovable property and could not be the subject of that offence, and the evidence did not establish misappropriation of the movable articles either.

Conclusion: No charge was sustainable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, and the accused was entitled to be discharged.

Final Conclusion: The revision challenging refusal to frame charges under Section 630 and Section 406 failed, while the revision against the charge under Section 403 succeeded, resulting in discharge of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 630 of the Companies Act is confined to existing officers or employees, and criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation cannot be made out without entrustment and misappropriation of movable property.

---