Karnataka High Court

Raghu vs The Manager Of P And A And Anr on 14 June, 2022

Bench: M G Uma

                             1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

     CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200001/2022
Between:

Raghu S/o Late Narayan,
Age: 38 years, Occ: Pvt. Work,
R/o Quarter No.F-12/1,
Jaypee Colony, Shahabad,
Dist. Kalaburagi-585228.
                                               ... Petitioner
(By Sri M.S.Kinikeri, Advocate)

And:

1.     The Manager of P&A,
       Jaypee Cement Co. Ltd.
       (formerly known as Zawar
       Cement Co. Ltd.)
       Tq. Shahabad,
       Dist. Kalaburagi-585228.

2.     The State through Shahabad P.S.
       Shahabad, Tq. Chittapur,
       Dist: Kalaburagi-585228.
       Represented by the
       Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
       High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi
                                             ... Respondents
(By Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, Advocate for R1;
 Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP for R2)
                                   2




       This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section
397(1) of Cr.P.C., praying to call for records from the
lower appellate Court and set aside the judgment and
order passed by the appellate Court, i.e., IV Addl. Sessions
Judge, Kalaburagi sitting at Sedam in Criminal Appeal
No.68/2016 dated 30.09.2020 and also set aside the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by
the trial Court, i.e., Civil Judge & JMFC, Shahabad in CC
No.75/2013 dated 17.09.2016.


       This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court passed the following:

                             ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the revision

petitioner-accused seeking to set aside the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed

in C.C.No.75/2013 by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC,

Shahabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') which

was confirmed by the judgment dated 30.09.2020 passed

in Criminal Appeal No.68/2016 by the learned IV-

Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, Sitting at Sedam,

for the offence punishable under Section 630(2) of the

Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act').

2. Brief facts of the case are that, father of the

petitioner was in service and he retired from service on

11.03.2002. While he was in service, he was in occupation

of the quarters bearing No.F-12/1 belonging to respondent

No.1-Jaypee Cements Co., Ltd., situated at Jaypee Cement

Colony, Shahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the

premises'). Thereafter, the petitioner being his son

continued to be in possession of the same. Respondent

No.1-Company initiated action under Section 630(2) of the

Act against the revision petitioner for wrongful withholding

of the premises in question.

3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the

offence. The petitioner being the accused denied the charge,

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant

in order to prove its contention examined PW.1 and got

marked Exs.P1 to P4 in support of its contention. The

accused has denied all the incriminating materials available

on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in support of his

defence. The learned Magistrate after taking into

consideration all the materials on record found that the

accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section

630(2) of the Act and accordingly, directed him to vacate the

premises in question and deliver vacant possession to the

complainant within thirty days from the date of the order. In

default of handing over the vacant possession of the

premises to the complainant, the accused was sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of thirty days. It

is also stated that after expiry of stipulated period of thirty

days, the complainant is at liberty to take vacant possession

of the above mentioned premises.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the

petitioner-accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal

No.68/2016 before learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge

Kalaburagi, Sitting at Sedam (hereinafter referred to as

'First Appellate Court'). The said appeal came to be

dismissed by the First Appellate Court confirming the

impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same,

the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri M.S.Kinikeri, learned counsel for the

revision petitioner, Sri R.S.Sidhapurkar, learned counsel

for respondent No.1 and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2-State.

Perused the material on record.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is the son of the employee

who was working under the respondent-Company. The

respondent-Company had never purchased the quarters in

question from the earlier company i.e., HMP Cements

Limited and therefore, company had no locus standi to

seek for the relief under Section 630(2) of the Act. He

further submitted that the dispute between the parties is

still pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Calcutta and

therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the

First Appellate Court is required to be set aside.

Accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.2 supporting the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court

submitted that the petitioner is a stranger to the premises

in question. His father was an employee under respondent

No.1-company and he retired on 11.03.2002. But, till

today, the petitioner has not vacated the premises. The

contention regarding ownership was never raised by the

petitioner before the Trial Court and no evidence was led in

support of the same. The Trial Court as well as the First

Appellate Court considered all the contentions of the

parties and arrived at a right conclusion. There is

absolutely no reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, they pray for dismissal of the petition as

devoid of merits.

8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties, the point that would arise

for my consideration is:

"Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be interfered with? What order?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

9. Section 630 of the Act deals with penalty for

wrongful withholding of property by the employees of the

company. Admittedly, the revision petitioner was never an

employee of the Company. But he claims right over the

premises in question through his father, who was working

as an employee and who admittedly, retired on

11.03.2002. Even after twenty long years, the revision

petitioner has not vacated the premises.

10. Though the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner contended that respondent No.1-company has

no locus standi to initiate proceedings under Section

630(2) of the Act, learned counsel failed to substantiate

his contention and also failed to show as to what is the

right of the revision petitioner to squat over the premises

in question. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not led

any evidence before the Trial Court to substantiate his

defence.

11. Section 630 of the Act enables the employer to

initiate criminal action for wrongful withholding of

possession of the property belonging to the Company. The

Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court taken note

of the fact that PW.1 was examined before Trial Court who

reiterated the averments made in the complaint and

produced Ex.P2 i.e., Leave and Licence Agreement

executed by the father of the revision petitioner. Fact that

the father of the petitioner retired from service on

11.03.2002 is not disputed. Ex.P3 is the demand notice

issued against the father of the petitioner calling upon him

to hand over the vacant possession of the property. The

Trial Court placed reliance on the order passed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.295/2009

between Gopika Chandrabhushan Saran and Anr vs.

M/s XLO India Ltd., and Anr and extracted paragraph-

16 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"16. The capacity, right to possession and the duration of occupation are all features which are integrally blended with the employment. Once the right of the employee or the officer to retain the possession of the property, either on account of termination of services, retirement, resignation or death, gets extinguished, they (persons in occupation) are under an obligation to return the property back to the company and on their failure to do so, they render themselves liable to be dealt with under Section 630 of the Act for retrieval of the possession of the property."

12. The Trial Court after placing reliance on the

above and also by observing that acquisition of the

Company and change of name of the Company are the

transaction relating to it, held that the accused has no

locus standi to question the same.

13. It is also noticed that specific defence was

taken by the revision petitioner before the Trial Court that

the gratuity amount of Rs.4,00,000/- due to his father was

not paid by the Company and therefore, the revision

petitioner is in occupation of the same. If the gratuity

amount that is due to the father of the petitioner was

withheld by the Company, the revision petitioner will have