Revisional scrutiny and company property retention: prima facie evidence can sustain summons under Section 630 and allied IPC offences.

Disputed questions about a company's competence to complain and the validity of board authorisation should not be finally resolved in revision on tentative material. The text states that prima facie evidence of a functioning company and continued retention of company property after resignation could support summoning. It also notes that Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 extends to a company director as an "officer," and that facts showing wrongful withholding of premises and assets may also disclose criminal breach of trust and trespass under the IPC. On that reasoning, the revisional order was set aside and the complaint restored with enlarged summons.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the summoning order on the basis of a tentative view that the complainant company lacked competence and that the board resolution authorising the complaint was invalid; (ii) Whether the material on record justified summoning the accused not only for the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 but also for offences under Sections 408 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the summoning order on the basis of a tentative view that the complainant company lacked competence and that the board resolution authorising the complaint was invalid.

Analysis: The revisional court proceeded on a disputed factual premise drawn from a notice seeking explanation from the company, though the notice did not establish the truth of the allegation that the board had fallen below the statutory minimum. The material before the Magistrate, including the report of the Registrar of Companies and the evidence led in the pre-summoning inquiry, showed a prima facie case that the company was functional and that the accused had continued to use company property after resigning as director. Questions of fact of this nature could not have been conclusively decided in revision on tentative material.

Conclusion: The order of the revisional court setting aside the summoning order was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record justified summoning the accused not only for the offence under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 but also for offences under Sections 408 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: Section 630 is not confined to an ordinary employer-employee relationship, because its penal sweep extends to an "officer" of the company, and a director falls within that expression. The record also showed prima facie that the accused had initially acquired possession and dominion over the company premises and movable assets by virtue of his position, but continued to retain them after ceasing to be associated with the company. On those facts, the ingredients of wrongful withholding and of criminal breach of trust and trespass were prima facie disclosed, and the Magistrate had erred in declining to summon for the IPC offences.

Conclusion: The summoning order was rightly restored, with additional summoning for offences under Sections 408 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional order succeeded, the impugned revision order was set aside, and the criminal complaint was restored for further proceedings before the Magistrate with enlarged summons as directed.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputed questions of fact affecting the competence of a complainant or the validity of authorisation cannot be finally resolved in revisional scrutiny on tentative or incomplete material, and a company director who wrongfully withholds company property after cessation of office may fall within Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 as well as the allied penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

---