Wrongful withholding of company property after retirement falls within section 630, and quashing of prosecution was refused.

Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 was interpreted to contain two independent limbs: wrongful obtaining of company property and wrongful withholding of company property already in possession. A former employee who retained company property after retirement was held to fall within the wrongful withholding limb, because the phrase "any such property" refers to company property and is not limited to property initially acquired unlawfully. The court also held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, process had been validly issued, and there was no basis to quash the proceedings in inherent or revisional jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a former employee who continues to retain company property after retirement, and whether the criminal complaint and process issued on that footing deserved to be quashed.

Analysis: Section 630 was read as comprising two independent limbs. Clause (a) covers wrongful obtaining of company property, while clause (b) independently covers wrongful withholding of company property already in possession. The expression "any such property" was held to refer to company property and not to confine the provision to property wrongfully obtained at the outset. The court treated the possession obtained during service and retained after retirement as falling squarely within wrongful withholding under clause (b). The court also relied on the purpose of the provision, the parallel in criminal trespass, and the need to avoid an interpretation that would defeat the object of protecting company property. On the procedural challenge, the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, the Magistrate had validly issued process, and no ground existed for quashing under the inherent or revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 applies to a past employee who wrongfully withholds company property obtained during service. The complaint and process were sustainable and the request to quash the proceedings failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecution was rejected, and the matter was left to proceed before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A former officer or employee who obtained company property during service and wrongfully retains it after cessation of employment commits wrongful withholding within section 630(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, and such a complaint discloses a prima facie case fit to proceed.

---