AMRIT LAL CHUMversusDEVOPRASAD DUTTA ROY AND ANR. ETC.

                             AMRIT LAL CHUM                                     A
                             v.
             DEVOPRASAD DUTIA ROY AND ANR. ETC.

                              JANUARY 20, 1988

                [A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND                               B
                           L.M. SHARMA, JJ.)

          Companies Act, 1956: Section 630-lnterpretation of-Officer/
     employee of company allotted flat, refusing to vacate, after retirement-
     Prosecution ofsuch officer/employee-Whether permissible.

.)-      Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 empowers the court, on
                                                                                c
~ the complaint of the Company, or any creditor or contributory thereof,
    to punish an officer or elJlployee of such company, by levy of fine, if
    such officer or employee wrongfully obtains possession of, or having
    obtained possession, wrongfully withholds or knowingly misapplies, the
    property of the company; and also order him to deliver up or refund, D
    within a stipulated time, such property or, in default, to suffer
    imprisonment.

           In these appeals against the Judgment of the High Court, the
     question for consideration was as to the scope and interpretation of this
     provision.                                                                E

           Allowing the appeals,

           HELD: Section 630 or the Companies Act, 1956 plainly makes it
     an offence if an officer or employee of a company who was permitted to
':-: use the property of the company during his employment, wrongfully F
 ·nretains or occupies the same after the termination of his employment. It
     1 the wrongful withholding of such property, meaning the property of
     the company after termination of the employment, which is an offence
     under s. 630(1) of the Act. [785B-C]

           There is, therefore, no warrant to give a restrictive meaning to the G
      term "officer or employee" appearing in sub-section (t) of s. 630 ofthe
      Act as meaning only the eii:isting officers and employees and not those
      whose employment has been terminated. [785C-D]

           Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. &
      Anr., ll987) 4 SCC 361, followed.                                         H
                                        783
    784                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·          [1988] 2 S.C.R.

A   [Time granted to respondents till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises
    subject to the furnishing of usual undertaking. In the event of failure to
    furnish the undertaking and/or vacate the premises within the time
    stipulated, the cases against the respondents to continue and the trial
    court to proceed with the trial and dispose them of expeditiously, but
    not later than 31.10.88.] [785G-H; 786A]
B
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 368 of 1986.
         From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.1986 of the Calcutta
    High Court in Crl. R. No. 1181of1985.
                                     WITH
c         Criminal ~ppeals Nos. 251-252of1986.
                    '~
         From th& Judgment and Order dated 26. 7.1975 of the Calcutta
    High Court in Crl1 Revn. Nos. 222 and 448 of 1985.
          Dr. Y.S. Chitale and H.K. Puri for the Appellant.
D
          Parijat Sinha for the Respondent in Crl. A. No. 368 of 1986.

        S.K. Kapur, Ranjan Dev and Mrs. Indra Sawhney for the
    Respondents in Crl. A. No. 251-252of1986.




                                                                                 -
E         Tapas Roy and D.K. Sinha for the State of West Bengal.

        D.K. Sinha, K.R. Nambiar, Ms. Reba Roy, K.K. Lahitri and
    Ms Apsi Ditta for the Interveners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered
F
                                   ORDER

          After hearing Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for
    respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 at quite
    some length, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the
G   one expressed by this Court in the recent judgment in Baldev Krishna
    Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr., [1987] 4 SCC 361
    overruling the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal
    Chum v. Devi Ranjan Jha, [1987] 61 Company Cases 211 as to the
    scope and effect of sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Companies Act, 1956.
    The Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case has placed a beneficent con-
H   sttuction on the provisions contained in sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act
                                   AMRIT LAL v. D.D. ROY                       785
iillt   and according to it the term 'officer or employee' in sub-s. (1) of s. 630
~       must be interpreted to mean not only the present officers and emp-
                                                                                   A
        loyees of a company but also to include the.past officers and employees
        of the Company. It has also taken the view that the words 'any such
        property' in cl. (b) thereof qualify the words 'any property of a com-
        pany' appearing in cl. (a). As observed in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case,
        s. 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee B
        of a company who was permitted to use the property of the compaay
        during his employment, wrongfully retains or occupies the same after
        the termination of his employment. It is the wrongful withholding of
•       such property, meaning the property of the company after termination
        of the employment, which is an offence under s. 630(1)(b) of the Act.
        The construction placed by this Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case is C
        the only construction possible. There is therefore no warrant to give a
        restrictive meaning to the term 'officer or empldyee' appearing in
        sub-s. (1) of s. 630 of the Act as meaning only the, existing officers and
        employees and not those whose employment have been terminated. The
         Court in Baldev Krishna Sahi's case has expressly overruled the judg-
        ment of the Calcutta High Court in Amrit Lal Chum v. Devi Ranjan D
        Jha, supra, against which these appeals have been filed and upheld the
        consistent view to the contrary taken by the High Court of Bombay in
        a series of cases. [See Harkishin Lakhimal Gidw_ani v. Achyut
         Kashinath Wagh, [1982] 52 Company Cases 1 and Govind T. Jagtiani
        v. Sirajuddin S. Kazi, I1984] 56 Company Cases 329 I.
                                                                                   E
               Accordingly, these appeals must succeed and are allowed with
         costs. The judgment of the High Court allowing the applications under
         s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are set aside.

        ~         Shri S.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondent
            no. 1 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 251-252 of 1986 and Shri Parijat Sinha, F
            learned counsel for respondent no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 368 of
            1986 pray for time to vacate the premises in their occupation. We grant
            the respondents time till June 30, 1988 to vacate the premises subject
            to their furnishing the usual undertaking in this Court within four
            weeks from today. If there is a failure on the part of the respondents to
            comply with these conditions, namely, failure to file the said under- G
            taking and/or to vacate the premises within the time allowed, the cases
            against them i.e. Complaint Case No. 1053/83 in the Court of IIIrd
            Additional Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas and Complaint
            Case No. 2788/84 in the Court of Special Divisional Judicial Magis-
            trate, Alipore, 24 Paraganas shall continue. In the event of respon-
            dents' failure to file the ur1dertaking and/or vacate the premises within H
    786                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS            11988] 2 S.C.R.

A   the time specified, the learned Magistrates shall proceed with the trial
    of these cases and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible and in
    any event, not later than October 31, 1988.

         The intervention application filed by Tata Iron and Steel Com-
    pany Limited is not pressed.
B
    N.P.V.                                                Appeals allowed.