Admissibility of a party-issued notice and lawful retention of company movables against a decree-backed salary claim

A certified copy of a notice issued by a party was held admissible without first summoning the original, because the copy was produced by the sender and exclusion on that ground was erroneous under section 66 of the Evidence Act. The document also states that retention of company movables against unpaid salary dues was not wrongful possession under section 282A of the Indian Companies Act where the accused had already obtained a civil decree recognising the amount due and treating the movables as a first charge. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a certified copy of a notice sent by the accused was inadmissible because the original had not been summoned; (ii) Whether the accused's retention of company movables, against unpaid salary dues, constituted wrongful possession under section 282A of the Indian Companies Act.

Issue (i): Whether a certified copy of a notice sent by the accused was inadmissible because the original had not been summoned.

Analysis: The document was itself a notice issued by one party to another, and the copy was produced by the sender. In such circumstances, the requirement to summon the original was not mandatory, and exclusion of the copy on that ground was erroneous under section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Conclusion: The copy of the notice was admissible, and the refusal to receive it in evidence was incorrect.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused's retention of company movables, against unpaid salary dues, constituted wrongful possession under section 282A of the Indian Companies Act.

Analysis: The accused had obtained a civil decree for the amount due to him, with costs, and the decree treated the same movable properties as a first charge. In that setting, the amount due was established, and retention of the movables in satisfaction of the unpaid claim could not be treated as wrongful possession within section 282A.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 282A was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted, with refund of any fine paid.

Ratio Decidendi: A copy of a notice issued by a party is admissible without calling for the original where the copy is produced by the sender, and possession of company property is not wrongful where it is retained against an established unpaid claim supported by a decree.

---