Bona fide title dispute cannot be decided in summary company property proceedings; statutory appeal route bars writ and inherent challenge.

Availability of a specific appeal against acquittal barred resort to supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 and inherent criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 to achieve the same result, so the challenge was not maintainable. In a prosecution for wrongful withholding of company property, the summary procedure under Section 630 of the Companies Act cannot be used to decide a bona fide civil dispute over title, lease, licence or tenancy; where the accused raises a genuine claim and civil litigation is pending, the matter must be left to the civil court. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable against an order of acquittal when an appeal lay under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred conversion of acquittal into conviction; (ii) whether, in a prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Magistrate could decide a bona fide dispute about title to the property or had to leave that question to the civil court.

Issue (i): whether a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were maintainable against an order of acquittal when an appeal lay under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 401(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 barred conversion of acquittal into conviction

Analysis: The availability of a specific appellate remedy against acquittal, together with the statutory limitation on revisional interference resulting in conversion of acquittal into conviction, excluded resort to supervisory writ jurisdiction and inherent criminal jurisdiction to achieve the same result. The complaint could be pursued, if at all, through the statutory appeal mechanism.

Conclusion: The writ petition and the petition under Section 482 were not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether, in a prosecution under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Magistrate could decide a bona fide dispute about title to the property or had to leave that question to the civil court

Analysis: Section 630 contemplates summary punishment for wrongful withholding of company property, but its application presupposes that the property of the company is not in bona fide dispute. Where the accused asserts a civil claim to the property and the company's own right depends on disputed questions of lease, licence, or tenancy, the controversy is essentially civil and cannot be conclusively resolved in summary criminal proceedings. On the facts, the competing claims and pending civil litigation showed a bona fide dispute as to title and interest in the premises.

Conclusion: The Magistrate could not determine the disputed title question under Section 630, and the matter was for the civil court.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the challenge to it failed, because the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to decide the underlying civil title dispute and the supervisory challenge to the acquittal was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for wrongful withholding of company property under Section 630 of the Companies Act cannot be used to adjudicate a bona fide civil dispute about title or tenancy, and where such a dispute exists the question must be left to the civil court rather than decided summarily by the criminal court.

---