TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioners for the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and imposed penalty of Rs. 500 and further directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of fine and, in default, the petitioners shall have to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days. The learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court has also directed that the petitioners shall hand over the peaceful and vacant possession of the quarters allotted to them on or before 30-4-2008 and in default, the petitioners shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. Bare facts are taken from Criminal Revision Application No. 311 of 2008. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2-Company through the Power of Attorney Holder has filed a complaint against the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 claiming possession of the quarters from the petitioners and for imposing punishment as provided under sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated in the said complaint that the petitioners were serving with the respondent No. 2 Company and since the petitioners were the employees of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... an employee of the Company. The employee of the Company has no authority or right to lodge complaint against another employee. Despite this fact, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had entertained the complaint. Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that both the Courts below have committed error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the disputed quarters were given to the petitioners on rent. There was no contract between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 Company to the effect that the said quarters were being allotted to the petitioners only during the service tenure of the petitioners and there was no contract that the petitioners would have to vacate the quarters after the service tenure was over. Every month rent was deducted from the salary of the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the quarters in question were being wrongly withheld by the petitioners and the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. 8. Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a limited Company and as per the provisions of the Companies Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioners. In absence of any such specific contract entered into between the parties, the relation would be as a landlord and a tenant. Mr. Majmudar has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Chhatrasingh Nathusingh Vaghela v. State of Gujarat 1998 (2) GLR 1426 wherein it is held that the Company could not produce any evidence to show under what terms and conditions of contract, the premises was allotted, then the defense put forward by the accused employee cannot be said to be a false one and if the defense version could not be said to be a false one, then the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Based on this decision, Mr. Majmudar has submitted that there is no evidence put forward by the respondent No. 2-Company to prove that under what terms and conditions, the residential quarters were allotted to the petitioners and, therefore, all the petitioners deserve to be acquitted and the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 11. Mr. Majmudar has further submitted that one Mr. Nitin Mehta has deposed on behalf of the respondent No. 2-Company. No Power of Attorney is given to the said Mr. Mehta on behalf of any of the Directors of the Company and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....em by virtue of their employment. There was no tenant-landlord relationship as alleged. Moreover, looking to the limited scope of revision, the concurrent finding given by the Courts below should not be disturbed by this Court. 15. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for Mr. K.M. Patel for the respondent No. 2 Company, has submitted that earlier two matters being Criminal Revision Application Nos. 339 & 347 of 1996 were filed before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dwarka under similar circumstances. When the Court was not inclined to grant any relief in the said two revision applications, the same were allowed to be withdrawn by an order dated 27-11-1996. While allowing to withdraw the revision applications, the Court observed that the revision application stands dismissed. The petitioners were directed to pay the fine, if not paid and as regards handing over possession of the Company premises is concerned, the petitioners were directed to hand over the same on or before 31-5-1997. The petitioners were also directed to pay the electricity and water charges and compensation charges as per rules on or before 31-5-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f any property of a company; or (b)having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorized by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof, be punishable with fine which may extend to [ten thousand rupees]. (2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years." An analysis of the section shows that what is penalized is not only wrongfully obtaining possession of property and the subsequent wrongfully withholding of it but also the refusal to deliver up the property within the time fixed by the Court for such delivery. Where the ingredients for attracting the application of section 630 have been made out, the right of the Company to the possession of the property becomes established and there is no scope to exercise any mercy power by the Court in favour of the em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t prosecution of the legal heirs and family members living with an erstwhile or former employee would violate Article 21 is, therefore, not correct. If the object of the provision of section 630 is borne in mind, the expansive meaning given to the expression "employee or any one claiming through him" will not be unrelated to the object of the provision nor is it so far fetched as to become unconstitutional. Mr. Patel has, therefore, rightly submitted that any one who is in occupation of the premises belonging to the Company is covered by the provisions contained under section 630 of the Companies Act and complaints can legitimately be filed against them. 21. In the case of Shubh Shanti Services Ltd. (supra), it is held that section 630 of the Companies Act includes both movable and immovable property. The words "such officer or employee" occurring in section 630(2) include past or present officer or employee or his or her legal representative. This provision strictly speaking is not penal in the sense as understood under penal law. The main purpose to make the action an offence under section 630 is to provide a speedy and summary procedure for retrieving the property of the Comp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rbitration, abandon and to carry to appeal and final execution of all legal and other proceedings and claims touching the affairs and properties of the Company and to sign all the Vakalatnamas and plaints and accept services of any writ or summons and other legal process and for the purposes aforesaid, to make all such appointments, grant all such powers and authorities, make all such applications, engage all such attorneys, pleaders and advocates and do all such other acts, matters and things as in the opinion of the attorney shall be necessary or expedient. In the case of Dr. Pradeep Mohanbay v. Minguel Carlos Dias 102 (1) Bom. L.R. 908, the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court held that power of attorney can file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 24. In the case of Hargyan v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003 Crl. LJ 2936, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an officer of the Electricity Board, who is in charge of the area when detects the theft of electricity is duty bound to lodge the complaint with the police and at that time, he will be a person aggrieved. During performance of his duties, if he detects some electricity thefts or dishonest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....004] 53 SCL 10 (Mag.), wherein it is held that Order 3, rules 1 and 2 empowers the holder of power of attorney to 'act' on behalf of the principal. The word 'acts' employed in order 3, rules 1 and 2, confines only in respect of 'acts' done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term 'acts' would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. If the power of attorney holder has rendered some 'acts' in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined. In the present case, it is true that the power of attorney has not been examined. However, this fact itself cannot vitiate the finding arrived at by the trial court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. Agreement Exh. 54 is in the nature of an undertaking given by the accused and contents of such agreement are self-explanatory. The signature of the accused on....